BR  121  . 

F25 

Fairbairn,  A 

.  M. 

1838- 

■1912. 

Religion  in  history  and 

in 

modern 

life 

Religion  in  History 


AND  IN 

MODERN  LIFE 


TOGETHER  WITH  AN  ESSAY  ON  THE  CHURCH 
AND  THE  WORKING  CLASSES 


BY 

:*i.  M,  FAIRBAIRN.  D.II 

PRINCIPAL  OF  MANSFIELD  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 


NEW  YORK 

THOMAS  WHITTAKER 
2  AND  3  Bible  House 


''Quench  not  the  Spirit;  despise  not  prophesyings ;  prove 
all  things  ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good  ;  abstain  from  every 
form  of  evil. 

''And  the  God  of  peace  Himself  sanctify  you  wholly  ;  and 
may  your  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  enure,  without 
blame,  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesm  Christ.^' — 1  Thess.  v. 
19-23. 


RELIGION    IN    HISTORY 

AND    IN 

MODERN    LIFE 


**  Nevertheless  it  is  open  to  seriOTis  question,  which  Heave  to 
the  reade?'^s  jjondering,  lohether,  among  national  manufac- 
tures, that  of  souls  of  a  good  quality  may  not  at  last  turn  out  a 
quite  leadingly  lucrative  one  ?  Nay,  in  some  far-away  and  yet 
undreamt-of  hour,  I  can  even  imagine  that  England  may  cast 
all  thoughts  of  possessing  wealth  back  to  the  barbaric  nations 
among  whonn  they  first  arose  ;  and  that,  while  the  sands  of  the 
Indus  and  adamant  of  Oolconda  my  yet  stiffen  the  housings  of 
the  charger,  and  flash  from  the  turban  of  the  slave,  she,  as  a 
Christian  motJier,  may  at  last  attain  to  the  virtues  and  the 
treasures  of  a  heathen  one,  and  be  able  to  lead  forth  her  sons, 
saying:  ^  These  are  my  jewels.''^''  —  Ruskin,  "Unto  this 
Last,"  ii. 

"  The  people  are  the  most  important  element  [in  a  country}  ; 
the  spirits  of  the  land  and  grain  are  the  next ;  the  ruler  is  the 
lightest. 

"  Therefore,  to  gam  the  peasantry  is  the  way  to  become  the 
son  of  Heaven  ;  to  gain  the  son  of  Heaven  is  the  way  to  become 
the  prince  of  a  state  ;  to  gain  the  prince  of  a  state  is  the  way 
to  become  a  great  officer,'' — "Mencius,"  Book  vii.,  Part  ii., 
Chapter  xiv. 

"  It  was  the  lesson  of  our  great  ancestor: — 
The  people  should  be  cherished, 
And  not  looked  down  upon. 
The  people  are  the  root  of  a  country; 
The  root  firm,  the  country  is  tranquil. 


Should  dissatisfaction  be  waited  for  till  it  appears  ? 
Before  it  is  seen,  it  should  be  guarded  against. 
In  my  dealings  with  the  millions  of  the  people, 
I  should  feel  as  much  anxiety  as  if  I  were  driving 
six  horses  with  rotten  reiyis.'"' 

The  Shu  King,  Part  i.,  Book  iii. 

"  Nothing  is  more  becoming  to  him  who  governs  than  to  de- 
spise no  man  and  not  show  arrogance,  but  to  preside  over  all 
with  equal  care."— Epictetus,  "Encheiridion,"  cxxxii. 


PREFACE. 


This  little  book  is  republished  in  response  to  much 
friendly  pressure  which  has  come  from  many  sides. 
While  it  has  been  revised  throughout,  and  in  certain 
places  expanded,  yet  expansion  has  not  been  found 
possible  where  it  was  most  needed — in  the  conclud- 
ing lecture.  But  this  is  the  less  regretted  as  the 
book  is  not  an  essay  in  what  it  is  the  fashion  to  call 
Christian  Economics,  but  rather  a  discussion  as  to 
the  nature  and  action  of  the  Christian  Religion  as 
it  has  revealed  and  fulfilled  itself  in  history.  Ab- 
stract economics,  even  though  deduced  from  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  are  more  likely  to  be  ingenious 
than  either  relevant  to  the  original  or  practicable 
in  the  present,  ideals  that  do  not  so  much  produce 
realities  as  become  apologies  for  their  absence.  A 
man  who  is  a  good  exegete  but  an  inexperienced 
economist,  is  no  more  able  to  apply  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  our  social  and  industrial  problems,  than 
the  man  who  is  an  expert  economist  but  a  stranger 
to  the  New  Testament.  To  make  knowledge  of  the 
one  subject  a  reason  for  attempting  to  write  on  both, 
is  simply  to  show  how  foolish  a  reasonable  man  may 
be,  for  it  is  nowhere  so  hard  to  think  truly  and  speak 


vi  Religion  in  History, 

wisely  as  in  the  application  of  simple  maxims  to 
complex  problems.  This,  of  course,  does  not  mean 
either  that  the  ethics  of  Christ  ought  not,  or  that 
they  cannot  be  applied  to  modern  economics;  on  the 
contrary,  the  whole  argument  of  the  book  is  gov- 
erned by  the  conviction  that  they  ought  to  be  so 
applied,  and  that  the  whole  past  life  of  the  Christian 
Religion  has  been  a  series  of  efforts  to  embody  itself 
in  a  higher  social  and  economical  order.  From 
these  efforts  the  religion  cannot  desist,  and  against 
the  hindrances  to  them  it  must  for  evermore  contend. 
But  then  in  order  to  the  success  of  this  contention 
the  churches  must  see  clearly  that  they  may  strike 
boldly;  to  hit  blindly  is  only  to  inflict  damage  all 
round. 

Now,  the  author  is  not  a  student  of  economics — 
in  this  region  he  feels  rather  than  sees,  but  he  is  a 
student  of  the  history  of  religion,  and  he  feels  more 
able  to  define  the  duty  and  function  of  religion  in 
the  present  when  he  comes  to  it  through  the  experi- 
ence of  the  past.  And  this  is  all  he  really  professes  to 
do,  but  even  so,  this  is  no  little  or  insignificant  thing 
to  attempt.  In  studying  the  history  and  the  action  of 
Christian  ideas,  we  move  in  the  region  of  the  actual, 
and  learn  through  what  the  religion  has  done,  what 
it  is  capable  of  doing,  what  it  has  failed  to  do,  why 
it  has  failed  to  do  it,  and  what  it  ought  now  to  set 
itself  to  accomplish.  The  historical  thus  becomes 
a  most  practical  discussion,  and  forms  a  necessary 
and  sobering  introduction  to  every  attempt  to  deal 
either  critically  or  constructively  with  the  economic 
functions  of  the  Christian  religion.     But  the  author 


Preface.  vii 

has  no  wish  to  escape,  under  the  disguise  of  an  histori- 
cal discussion,  the  grave  responsibility  which  lies 
upon  every  Christian  teacher  to  apply  his  religion 
to  the  present.  His  sense  of  this  responsibility, 
within  the  limits  defined  by  the  origin  and  purpose 
of  the  lectures,  is  partially  expressed  in  the  essay  on 
''The  Church  and  the  Working  Classes."  Without 
this  recognition  of  duty  he  could  not  have  allowed 
this  book  to  go  forth  in  a  new  edition. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  as  wefl  to  recall  the  original 
purpose  of  the  Lectures  which  form  the  body  of  the 
book.  The  author  was  then  resident  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Bradford,  and  he  volunteered  to  address 
the  working  men  of  the  town  on  ' '  Religion  in  His- 
tory, "  expressly  through  the  press  inviting  them  to 
attend.  His  purpose  was  thus  stated  in  the  Preface 
to  the  First  Edition: — 

' '  The  reasons  which  induced  me  to  take  so  un- 
usual a  step  had  a  twofold  source;  first,  the  strong 
conviction  of  what  Religion  is,  and  what  it  ought  to 
do;  and,  secondly,  the  feeling  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  special  student  to  become,  as  far  as  possible,  a 
teacher  of  the  people,  especially  in  matters  where 
the  peopfe  so  much  need  instruction,  and  where 
instruction  is  so  necessary  to  their  highest  good. 
Our  hard-worked  ministers  and  clergy  have  quite 
enough  to  do  without  attempting  labour  of  this 
kind;  yet  it  is  labour  that  ought  to  be  done.  The 
ordinary  pulpit  leaves  many  questions  undiscussed, 
and  the  ordinary  congregation  does  not  desire  or 
require   their  discussion;    yet   they   are   questions 


viii  Religion  in  History, 

everywhere  anxiously  debated  by  earnest  and  most 
excellent  men.  It  is  easy,  through  the  press,  to 
reach  the  cultivated  and  leisured  classes;  it  is  not 
so  easy,  indeed  to  many  it  is  quite  impossible,  to 
reach  the  industrial  classes  through  it.  Yet  these 
latter  are  often  the  more  susceptible,  with  natures 
more  open  to  conviction,  more  fully  convinced,  if 
convinced  at  all.  Some  things  that  had  recently 
happened  within  my  own  experience,  made  me  very 
vividly  aware  of  the  peculiar  forms  our  religious 
problems  and  difficulties  assume  among  our  working 
men,  and  this  discovery  led  to  the  feeling  of  obliga- 
tion that  resulted  in  the  delivery  of  these  Lectures. 
I  felt  bound,  as  a  student  and  teacher  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  to  speak  to  my  fellow  townsmen,  es- 
pecially those  of  the  industrial  classes,  concerning 
questions  they  were  discussing  and  honestly  trying 
to  understand. 

''The  Lectures  were  determined  alike  as  to  mat- 
ter and  form  by  their  purpose.  They  are  not  apolo- 
getic in  the  customary  sense,  but  I  hope  they  are 
something  better,  because  more  relevant  to  the  act- 
ual state  of  mind  of  the  persons  addressed.  It  will 
be  but  just  if  they  are  judged  according  to  their  real 
intention  and  scope,  and  in  no  respect  as  a  polemi- 
cal and  controversial  endeavour." 


December  10,  1893. 


"  The  King  said  to  his  people :  '  The  good  in  you  I  will  not 
dare  to  keep  co7icealed  ;  and  for  the  evil  in  me  I  will  not  dare 
to  forgive  myself.  I  will  examine  these  things  in  harmony 
with  the  mind  of  God.  When  guilt  is  found  anywhere  in  you 
who  occupy  the  myriad  regions,  let  it  rest  on  me,  the  O^ie  Tnan. 
When  guilt  is  found  in  me,  the  One  Tnan,  it  shall  not  attach  to 
you  who  occupy  the  myriad  regions.'  " — "  The  Shu  King,"  Part 
iv.,  Book  iii.,  Part  3. 

"  Heaven  loves  the  people,  and  the  sovereign  should  reverently 
carry  out  (this  mind  of)  Heaven.'' — lb.,  Part  v.,  Book  i.,  §  2. 

**  The  ancients  have  said,  *  He  who  soothes  us  is  our  sov- 
ereign;  he  who  oppresses  us  is  our  enemy.  " — lb.,  Part  v., 
Book  i.,  §  3. 

"  A  state  exists  for  the  sake  of  a  good  life,  and  not  for  the 
sake  of  life  only  :  if  life  only  were  the  object,  slaves  and  brute 
animals  might  form  a  state  ;  but  they  cannot,  for  they  have  oio 
share  in  happiness  or  in  a  life  of  free  choice.  .  .  .  Whefice 
it  may  be  further  inferred  that  virtue  must  be  the  serious  care 
of  a  state  which  truly  deserves  the  name  :  for  (without  this 
ethical  end)  the  coimnunity  becomes  a  mere  alliance  which  dif- 
fers only  in  place  from  alliances  of  which  the  members  live 
apart;  and  law  is  only  a  convention,  '  a  surety  to  one  another 
of  justice,'  as  the  sophist  Lycophron  says,  and  has  no  real 
power  to  make  the  citizens  good  and  just.'" — Aristotle,  "Poli- 
tics," Book  L,  §  9. 

'•Ji{  has  been  well  said  that  '■he  who  has  never  learned  to 
obey  cannot  be  a  good  commander.'  The  two  are  not  the  same, 
but  the  good  citizen  ought  to  be  capable  of  both ;  he  should 
know  how  to  govern  like  a  freeman,  and  how  to  obey  like  a 
freeman — tJiese  are  the  virtues  of  a  citizen." — lb.,  Book  iii.,  §  4. 

'*  Two  principles  are  characteristic  of  democracy,  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  majority  and  freedom.  Men  think  that  what  is 
just  is  equal ;  and  that  equality  is  the  supremacy  of  thej)opidar 
will;  and  that  freedom  and  equality  mean  the  doing  what  a 
man  likes,  hi  such  democracies  every  one  lives  as  he  pleases, 
or  in  the  words  of  Euripides,  'according  to  his  fancy.'  But 
this  is  all  wrong ;  men  should  not  think  it  slavery  to  live  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  the  constitution  ;  for  it  is  their  salvation." 
lb.,  Book  v.,  §  9. 

"Neither  is  a  horse  elated  nor  proud  of  his  manger  and 
trappings  and  coverings,  nor  a  bird  of  his  little  shreds  of 
cloth  or  of  his  nest :  but  both  of  them  are  proud  of  their  swift- 
ness ;  one  proud  of  the  swiftness  of  the  feet,  and"^  the  other  of 
the  wings.  Do  you  also,  then,  not  be  greatly  proud  of  your 
food  and  dress,  a?id,  in  short,  of  any  external  things,  but  be 
proud  of  your  integrity  and  good  deeds  (£i);roira)."— Epictetus, 
'*  Encheiridion,"  xxvi. 


CONTENTS. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  WORKING  CLASSES. 

PAGE 

1.  Its  Changed  Attitude  to  the  Working  Classes — 

The  Religious  Causes  of  this  Change  and  its  Forms  1 
Its  Effects  on  Different  Classes  of  Society       .        .  3 
The  New  and  Practical  Interest  in  Labour  Ques- 
tions         6 

2.  The  Attitude  of  the  Men  to  the  Churches — 

Less  Change  in  their  Attitude        ....      10 
The  Alienation  from  the  Churches  ...      11 

3.  Causes,  Apparent  and  Real,  of  Alienation — 

Distrust  of  the  Churches  rather  than  Disbelief  at 

Work 15 

The  Loss  of  Adaptation  by  the  Church  to  its  Envir- 
onment   18 

4.  Influence  op  the  Political  Development — 

The  Organic  Relation  of  Political  and  Religious 

Thought 22 

The  Conflict  of  the  New  Ideas  and  the  Old  Order 

in  the  French  Revolution        ....      25 

The  New  Ideas  and  the  English  Churches      .        .26 

The  Church  to-day  must  be  as  the  State  is     .        .29 

5.  Influence  of  Society  and  the  Social  Spirit — 

Divisive  Social  Tendencies 31 

Their  Action  within    the  Churches,   how    to  be 

checked ^3 

6.  Influence  of  the  Industrial  Development — 

Its  Hostility  to  the  Cultivation  of  the  Religious 

Spirit 37 

The  Remedies  and  the  Counteragencies  required  .      39 


xii  Contents. 

PAGE 

7.  Influence  of  the  Intellectual  Movement — 

The  Literature  and  Educative  Forces  of  Modern 

Life 42 

Religious  Education  as  it  is  and  as  it  ought  to  be      46 

8.  The  Conciliation  of  the  Alienated — 

The  Church  to  be  faithful  to  its  Mission         .        .      49 
Its  Influence  on  the  Mind,  the  Life,  and  the  Home      54 

9.  Urgency  of  the  Need — 

The  Modern  Democracy :  our  Last  Reserves          .      68 
The  Rulers  must  be  ruled 61 


LECTURE  I. 

What  is  Religion? 

Clearness  in  our  Idea  of  it  necessary    ...       65 

1.  The  Relation  of  the  Churches  to  it       .        .        .67 

2.  It  is  universal  and  natural  to  Man         .         .         .71 

3.  Philosophical  Explanations 77 

4.  Its  Highest  Conception  determines  its  Character  80 
By  it  the  Ends  of  God  realized  through  Man       .       87 

LECTURE  II. 

The  Place  and  Sicnificance  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  ReliCtIon. 

Restatement  of  Temper  and   Principles  of  Inquiry      92 

1.  The  Scientific  Method  of  Study  ....  95 
Popular  Difficulties  concerning  the  Bible    .        .       99 

2.  The  Old  Testament  the  History  of  a  Religion  .  104 
The  Name  and  Character  of  God  ....  107 
The  Hebrew  People  and  its  Faith  .        .        .        .111 


Contents.  xiii 

PAGE 


3.  The  Regulative  and  Organizing  Power  of  a  Great 

Conception  .... 
The  Mosaic  Ideal  of  Religion 

4.  Its  Notion  of  Man  as  moral 
And  of  the  State  as  the  same 

6.  The  Law  in  Other  Relations    . 

The    Spiritual   and   Moral   Wealth   of   the    Old 
Testament      .... 

LECTURE  III. 


114 
117 
119 
121 
123 

127 


The    Place  and  Significance  of    the  New 
Testament  in  Religion. 

1.  The  Old  Testament  the   Primary   Source   of   our 

Moral  Ideals  in  Religion 132 

The    New    Testament    inherits    and    universalizes 

these 136 

2.  Christ  and  the  Traditional  Ideals  of  His  Day      .  138 

His  Own  Ideal 141 

The  Kingdom  of  God,  its  Embodiment        .        .        .  142 

3.  The  Christian  Ideas  of  God  and  of  Man         .        .  145 
These  Ideas,  how  related  in  Christianity  and  in 

OTHER  Religions  151 

4.  The  Unity  of  Mankind  in  the  City  of  God      .        .     154 
Christianity  a  Religion  of  Redemption  .        .     159 

5.  Christ's  Influence  on  Personalities         .        .        .163 
The  Redeemer  and  Leader  of  Progress  .        .166 

LECTURE  lY. 

The  Christian  Religion  in  the  First  Fifteen 
Centuries  of  its  Existence. 

The  Scope  and  Purpose  of  the  Lecture  .        .169 

1.  The  Distinctive  Notes  of  Early  Christianity  .     173 

2.  The  Influence  of  certain  old  Pagan  and  Judaic 

Ideas 183 


XIV  Contents. 


PAGE 


3.  The  Effect  of  Christian  Ideas  on  the  Industrial  and 

Social  System  of  Ancient  Rome         .        .        .187 

4.  The  Action  of  the  Christian  Faith  on  the  Life  of  Man    193 


LECTURE  y. 

The  Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe. 

The  Energy  and  the  Pain  of  Modern  Life     .        .199 

1.  The  Power  OF  THE  Churches  and  the  Strength  OF  Faith  201 

2.  The  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation    .        .        .205 

3.  The  Influence  of  Calvin 209 

4.  Liberty,  Political  and  Religious,  whence  sprung     .     213 
Its  Source  in  the  Religion  of  Christ  .        .        .218 

Equality 224 

Fraternity 225 

The  Amelioratiye  Forces  of  Modern  Society     .        .    226 

LECTURE  YI. 

The  Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life. 

The  Province  of  Religion 229 

1.  Ultimate  Ideas  and  THE  Organization  OF  Societies     .    231 
The  Evolution  of  the  Modern  Christian  Ideal  of 

Humanity 234 

2.  Various  Ancient  and  Modern  Ideals  compared  here- 

with   236 

The  Architectonic  Power  of  the  Christian  Religion      243 

3.  Its  Application  in  Various  Departments  of  Life        .     245 
The  Ideal  of  Christ  our  Hope  for  the  Future  ,        ,260 


'^Behold  my  servant,  luhom  I  uphold;  my  chosen^  in  whom 
my  soul  delighteth  :  I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him  ;  he  shall 
bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles.  Be  shall  not  cry,  nor 
lift  up,  nor  cause  his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street.  A  bruised 
reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  the  smokiyig  flax  shall  he  not 
quench  :  he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  in  truth.  He  shall  not 
fail  norjbe  discouraged,  till  he  have  set  judgment  in  the  earth  ; 
and  the  isles  shall  wait  for  his  law." — ]^aiah  xlii.  1-4. 

*'And  he  came  to  Nazareth,  where  he  had  been  brought  up  : 
and  he  entered,  as  his  custom  was,  into  the  synagogue  on  the  sab- 
bath day,  and  stood  up  to  read.  And  there  was  delivered  unto 
him  the  book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah.  And  he  opened  the  book, 
and  found  the  place  where  it  was  written, 

*  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me, 
Because  he  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the 

poor  : 
He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release  to  the  captives. 
And  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind. 
To  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 
To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.'' " 

St.  Luke  iv.  16-19. 

**  For  when  the  ear  heard  me,  then  it  blessed  me  : 
And  when  the  eye  saw  me,  it  gave  witness  unto  me  : 
Because  I  delivered  the  poor  that  cried. 
The  fatherless  also,  that  had  none  to  help  him. 
The  blessing  of  him  that  was  ready  to  perish  came 

upon  me  : 
And  I  caused  the  widow's  heart  to  sing  for  joy. 
I  put  on  righteousness,  and  it  clothed  me  : 
My  justice  was  as  a  robe  and  a  diadem, 
I  was  eyes  to  the  blind. 
And  feet  was  I  to  the  lame. 
I  was  a  father  to  the  needy : 
And  the  cause  of  him  that  I  knew  not  I  searched  out.'* 

Job  xxix.  11-16. 

*•  Render  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  Take  thought  for  things 
honourable  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  If  it  be  possible,  as  much 
as  in  you  lieth,  be  at  peace  with  all  wew."— Romans  xii.  17,  18. 


THE    CHURCH   AND   THE 
WORKING   CLASSES 


"  The  Working  Classes  cannot  any  longer  go  on  without  gov- 
ernment;  without  being  SiCtually  guided  a7id  govet'ned;  England 
cannot  subsist  in  peace  till,  by  some  means  or  other,  some 
guidance  and  government  for  them  is  found.''  —  Carlyle, 
♦'Chartism,"  Chapter  vi. 

"  There  is  not  a  hamlet  where  ijoor  peasants  congregate, 
but,  by  one  means  and  another,  a  Church- Apparatus  has  been 
got  together, — roofed  edifice,  with  reveiiues  and  belfries;  pul- 
pit, reading-desk,  with  Books  and  Methods:  2^ossibility,  in 
short,  and  strict  prescription.  That  a  man  stand  there  and 
speak  of  spiritual  things  to  men.  It  is  beautiful ; — even  in  its 
great  obscuration  and  decadence,  it  is  among  the  beautifulest, 
most  touching  objects  one  sees  on  the  Earth.  This  Sjjeaking  Man 
has  indeed,  in  these  times,  wandered  terribly  from  the  point ; 
has,  alas,  as  it  were,  totally  lost  sight  of  the  point :  yet,  at  bot- 
tom, whom  have  we  to  compare  with  him  ?  Of  all  public  func- 
tionaries boarded  and  lodged  on  the  Industry  of  Modern 
Europe,  is  there  one  worthier  of  the  board  he  has  ?  A  man 
even  professing,  and  never  so  languidly  making  still  some 
endeavour,  to  save  the  souls  of  me7i:  contrast  him  with  a  man 
professing  to  do  little  but  shoot  the  partridges  of  men  I  I  wish 
he  could  find  the  point  again,  this  Speaking  One;  and  stick  to 
it  with  tenacity,  with  deadly  energy;  for  there  is  need  of  him 
yet!  The  Speaking  Function,  this  of  Truth  coming  to  us  u'ith 
a  living  voice,  nay  in  a  living  shape,  and  as  a  concrete  prac- 
tical exemplar:  this,  with  all  our  Writing  and  Printing  Func- 
tions, has  a  perennial  place.  Coidd  he  but  find  the  point 
again, — take  the  old  spectacles  off  his  nose,  and  looking  up 
discover,  almost  in  contact  with  him,  n-ihat  the  real  Satanas 
and  soul-devouring,  world-devouring  Devil,  no^o  is  !  Original 
Sin  and  suchlike  are  bad  enoughs  I  doubt  not :  but  distilled  Gin. 
dark  Ignorance,  Stupidity,  dark  Corn-Law,  Bastille  and  Com- 
pany, what  are  they  !  Will  he  discover  our  neio  real  Satan, 
whom  he  has  to  fight ;  or  go  on  droning  through  his  old  nose- 
S2)ectacles  about  old  extinct  Satans;  and  never  see  the  real 
one,  till  he  feel  him  at  his  own  throat  and  ours  ?  That  is  a 
question,  for  the  world  I " — Carlyle,  "Past  and  Present,"  Book 
iv.,  Chapter  i. 


RELIGION   IN   HISTORY  AND  IN 
MODERN  LIFE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  WORKING  CLASSES. 

It  is  now  almost  ten  years  since  these  Lectures 
were  delivered,  and  this  period  is  remarkable  lor 
the  growth  in  all  religious  societies  of  a  new  feeling 
for  our  workmen,  and  of  responsibility  in  connexion 
with  their  special  problems. 

1.  The  causes  and  forms  of  this  latest  and  most 
hopeful  outgrowth  of  the  Christian  conscience  are 
many  and  most  varied.  The  generous  and  trustful 
humanity  of  the  older  Christian  Socialists — Maurice, 
Kingsley,  and  Hughes — fired  the  enthusiasm  of  their 
disciples,  and  led  them,  now  as  teachers  and  now  as 
co-operators,  through  personal  intercourse  to  such  a 
knowledge  of  working  men,  their  character,  their 
capacity,  their  aims  and  claims,  as  awakened  a  new 
.sense  of  affinity  with  their  manhood,  and  sympathy 


2  Religion  in  History. 

with  their  efforts  after  amelioration.  The  extension 
of  primary  and  the  reform  of  secondary  education 
made  the  more  open-minded  men  of  the  older  uni- 
versities, see  the  intellectual  promise  and  abilities  of 
those  who  had  hitherto  been  excluded  from  the 
higher  culture.  The  finely  blended  speculative  and 
practical  genius  of  T.  H.  Green  became  a  passion 
for  the  realization  of  the  ideals  of  freedom  and  justice 
in  all  the  grades  of  our  social  and  in  all  the  forms  of 
our  national  life,  and  his  personal  influence  imparted 
his  passion  to  several  generations  of  university  men, 
who  later  expressed  it  in  their  own  ways,  now  in 
economics,  now  in  politics,  and  now  in  the  church. 
The  study  of  the  industrial  revolution  in  the  spirit 
and  through  the  philosophy  of  Green  made  Arnold 
Toynbee  feel  that  the  man  who  tended  the  machine 
must  no  longer  be  sacrificed  to  the  machine  he 
tended,  but  be  made,  even  by  the  craft  he  followed, 
better  as  a  man  and  more  efficient  as  a  citizen.  The 
teachings  of  Carlyle  distilled  through  Ruskin,  and 
woven  by  him  into  the  theories  of  art  and  the  criti- 
cisms of  life  that  were  his  message  to  the  age, 
inspired  with  a  will  for  service  many  who  would 
otherwise  have  wasted  their  sensitive  enthusiasm  in 
admiration  of  dubious  art.  The  Anglican  revival, 
like  the  older  evangelical,  became  in  many  of  its 
sons  a  love  of  souls,  and  certain  both  of  its  priests 
and  laymen  made  the  East  End  of  London  the  scene 
of  as  unselfish  labours  and  as  consecrated  lives  as 
the  most  heroic  ages  of  the  Church  have  known. 

The  result  of   these   and   similar   causes   is  the 
varied  movements,  outwardly  so  different,  which  have 


The  Church  and  the  Working  Classes.  3 

had  as  their  common  end  help  of  the  working  classes, 
especially  those  whose  lot  is  hardest  and  least  hope- 
ful. Hence  have  come  Toynbee  Hall  with  its  sane 
and  sagacious  belief  in  the  value  of  art  for  the 
squalid  East  End,  and  its  brave  endeavour  to  educate 
the  universities  by  means  of  Whitechapel,  and  to 
save  Whitechapel  by  the  culture  and  service  of  the 
universities;  Oxford  House,  with  its  intense  con- 
viction of  the  mission  of  the  Church  to  the  masses, 
though  of  a  mission  that  the  ordinary  ecclesiastical 
agencies  and  methods  are  quite  unable  to  fulfil; 
Mansfield  House,  w^ith  its  strong,  practical  spirit, 
seeking  to  improve  the  houses,  the  amusements,  the 
minds,  the  relationships,  and  the  lives  of  the  workers 
in  the  farther  East  End;  the  Wesleyan  settlement  at 
Bermondsey,  with  its  noble  religious  zeal  and  broad 
philanthropy  attempting  at  once  to  heal  the  bodies 
and  save  the  souls  of  those  it  can  reach;  University 
Hall,  with  its  intellectual  energy  and  its  belief  in 
knowledge  as  a  saving  and  civilizing  power;  and 
besides  these  a  multitude  of  houses  and  missions  in- 
dependently and  separately  maintained  by  colleges 
and  public  schools. 

But  the  first  broad  and  most  apparent  result  of 
these  varied  institutions  is  this,  they  have  affected 
much  more  profoundly  those  who  have  conducted 
them  than  those  for  w^hose  sakes  they  are  being  con- 
ducted. Men  who,  left  to  the  ordinary  tendencies  of 
nurture  and  culture,  would  have  seen  things  only 
through  the  eyes  of  the  propertied  and  leisured 
classes,  have  come  or  are  coming  to  study  them 
through  the  eyes  of  those  who  eat  their  bread  in  the 


4  Religion  in  History. 

sweat  of  their  brow,  often  finding  but  little  bread  for 
all  their  sweat  and  toil.  And  it  has  been  found 
surely  enough  that  the  same  things  look  wonderfully 
different  when  seen  from  those  two  opposite  points 
of  view.  For  largely  out  of  these  settlements,  and 
the  influences  by  which  they  have  persuaded  cultured 
minds  to  occupy,  sympathetically,  the  standpoint  of 
the  labourer,  there  has  come  both  an  academic  and  a 
religious  socialism,  which  is  powerfully  modifying 
political,  economical,  and  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  and 
which  promises  to  affect  the  teaching  and  practice 
of  the  churches  as  radically  as  it  is  affecting  the 
spirit  and  the  scope  of  our  civil  legislation.  We  are 
witnessing  a  process  of  conversion,  but  it  is  of  the 
missionaries  at  the  unconscious  hands  of  those  they 
were  sent  out  to  convert;  and  this  is  a  process  which 
may  have  the  most  momentous  results  for  the  future 
of  society  and  religion  in  England. 

2.  But  correspondent  to  the  new  feeling  which 
these  causes  have  been  contributing  to  produce  in  the 
churches,  is  the  birth  of  a  new  spirit  in  the  lower 
labour.  It  is  possessed  of  a  hopefulness  which  may 
be  described  as  the  child  of  a  new  sense, — on  the  one 
side,  of  internal  competence  or  capability,  and  on 
the  other,  of  the  sympathy  which  comes  from  being 
better  understood.  In  other  words,  it  does  not  feel 
so  much  in  bondage  to  its  own  infirmities,  or  so 
much  an  outcast  from  the  community  of  freedom  and 
progress  and  hope.  This  has  been  illustrated  by 
those  recent  events  in  our  economic  history,  which 
showed,  first,  the  ability  of  the  classes  that  live  by 
what  is  termed  unskilled  labour  to  conceive  methods 


The  Church  and  the  Working  Classes.  5 

and  to  use  means  for  their  own  amelioration,  and 
even  to  combine  in  support  of  them;  and  secondly, 
the  willingness  of  classes  once  hostile  or  indifferent 
to  assume  a  kindlier  and  more  intelligent  attitude 
to  the  disputes  of  labour,  and  even  the  tendency  to 
regard  its  questions  as  the  concern  not  simply  of 
economics,  but  of  social  ethics.  This  spirit  of  sym- 
pathy from  without  labour  which  has  so  cheered  the 
upward  impulse  from  within  it,  stands  in  notable 
contrast  to  the  jealous  and  fretful  criticism  wiiich 
hindered  and  harassed  the  earliest  attempts  of  the 
skilled  workmen  at  combination.  Both  of  these  are 
hopeful  elements,  for  the  men  who  can  design  a  pol- 
icy of  social  and  industrial  improvement  and  unite 
in  its  support,  have  become  something  more  and  bet- 
ter than  day  labourers;  while  the  society  that  looks  at 
an  industrial  question  through  living  persons  and  in 
its  effects  upon  them,  and  not  simply  through  the 
abstract  ideas  of  capital  and  labour,  production  and 
distribution,  has  translated  the  problem  as  to  wealth 
into  one  as  to  well-being.  The  laws  of  political 
economy  may  be  regarded  in  the  one  case,  as  in  the 
other,  as  expressing  actual  processes  or  relations 
between  co-ordinated  phenomena,  but  they  will  be 
supplemented  in  the  one  case,  as  they  would  not  be 
in  the  other,  by  the  attempt  to  discover  those  coun- 
tervailing forces,  or  to  create  those  modifying  con- 
ditions, that  shall  change  their  morally  indifferent  or 
sectionally  injurious  action  into  one  socially  and  col- 
lectively beneficent.  For  economics  may  show  the 
need  of  change,  and  the  alternative  lines  along  which 
it  may  move;  but  it  is  the  function  of  the  social  con- 


6  Religion  in  History. 

science  to  say  which  line  the  common  good  makes 
the  more  imperative.  Thus  economics  may  tell  that 
either  rent,  or  interest,  or  wages,  must  rise  or  fall, 
but  it  belongs  to  ethics  to  say  which  of  these  has 
the  prior  right  to  consideration  in  the  adjustment 
of  the  upward  or  downward  scale. 

We  may,  then,  venture  to  affirm  that  the  ethical 
is  the  strongest  and  most  significant  tendency  in 
social  and  political  thought.  And  so  men  are  com- 
ing to  see  more  clearly  that,  for  moral  rather  than 
economical  reasons,  questions  between  classes  are 
never  merely  class  questions,  and  that  what  depresses 
the  standard  of  living  in  any  one  class  lowers  the 
level  and  worth  of  life  throughout  the  community  as 
a  whole.  And  this  idea  is  so  penetrating  the  com- 
munity that  we  see  it  daily  becoming  more  distinctly 
conscious  that  it  is  as  responsible  for  safeguarding 
the  skill  which  is  the  sole  property  of  the  artisan, 
and,  as  far  as  possible,  securing  his  happiness  also, 
as  for  protecting  his  employer  in  the  use  and  enjoy- 
ment of  his  capital.  And  this  is  a  point  which  the 
industrial  struggle  through  which  we  are  even  now 
passing  with  so  much  pain  and  shame,  is  only  the 
more  defining  and  emphasizing.  In  no  previous 
economic  struggle  has  the  sense  of  justice  within  the 
community  been  so  widely  and  deeply  touched,  or  so 
vigorously  expressed.  The  feeling  has  grown  that 
both  masters  and  men  have  a  responsibility  to  the 
community  as  well  as  to  each  other,  and  that  the 
community  has  such  a  responsibility  to  both  as  will 
not  allow  it  to  stand  as  an  idle  or  uninterested 
«iV^ctator  of  the  disastrous  strife.     The  awakening 


The  Church  and  the  Working  Classes.         t 

sense  of  justice  means  that  legislation  embodying  it 
will  most  surely  follow,  and  this  legislation  will  seek 
to  deal  justly  with  both  classes — with  the  demand 
of  the  men  for  a  living  wage,  and  of  the  masters  for 
guarded  property  and  fair  profits, — and  will  attempt 
to  secure  that  each  class  shall  deal  justly  by  the 
other,  and  both  by  the  community  as  a  whole.  It 
seems,  then,  as  if  we  were  tending  towards  a  state 
where  we  shall  have  greater  unity  of  feeling  and 
solidarity  of  ethical  interests;  and  where  these  are, 
there  will  be  more  of  the  pressure  of  the  community 
upon  the  class  than  of  the  dominion  of  the  class  over 
the  community,  though,  it  must  be  confessed,  this  is 
a  state  where  wisdom  and  justice  are  demanded  as 
they  were  never  demanded  or  needed  before. 

3.  Now,  the  most  efficient  factors  of  this  change 
have  been  many,  labour  itself  being  the  most  efficient 
factor  of  all.  Our  workmen  are  no  longer  dumb; 
we  cannot  now  speak  of  them  with  Carlyle  as  the 
inarticulate  multitude.  They  have  a  mind  of  their 
own  and  a  most  potent  voice,  while  they  have  been 
represented  by  many  convinced  and  persuasive 
spokesmen.  The  economics  of  the  school  and  the 
study  do  not  now  reign  in  undisputed  supremacy; 
they  are  confronted  and  challenged  by  the  economics 
of  the  workshop  and  the  trades-union.  And  while 
we  may  here  leave  thesis  and  antithesis  to  qualify 
each  other,  we  must  confess  that  not  only  has  the 
workman's  experience  forced  the  student  to  modify 
his  doctrines,  but  his  arguments  have  also  conquered 
many  of  the  prejudices  and  modified  the  mind  of  our 
English  public,  which,  though  often  unreasonable  and 


8  Religion  in  History. 

hard  to  convince,  is  invariably,  when  convinced,  a 
mind  both  honest  and  just.  Yet  while  the  workmen 
themselves  have  been  the  most  efficient  factors  of  this 
changed  attitude  to  their  questions,  we  may  say  that 
those  who  have  given  the  most  remarkable  and  em- 
phatic expression  to  the  change  have  been  churchmen, 
princes  of  the  Roman,  bishops  of  the  Anglican,  pas- 
tors of  the  Nonconformist  communions.  It  is  not  said 
or  meant  that  these  were  the  men  who  formulated  the 
principles  or  inaugurated  the  movements  that  effected 
the  change, — this,  we  have  just  said,  the  workmen 
were  and  the  churchmen  certainly  were  not;  but  they 
expressed  it,  gave  the  sort  of  social  sanction  that  made 
society  aware  of  the  process  that  was  going  forward, 
of  the  new  feelings  towards  labour,  its  state  and 
claims,  that  were  rising  within  it.  The  really  signifi- 
cant thing  is  that  Roman  priests,  English  bishops, 
and  dissenting  ministers  have  so  tried  to  intervene,  or 
have  so  succeeded  in  intervening,  as  arbiters  between 
masters  and  workmen  as  to  express  the  idea  that 
conflicts  between  capital  and  labour  concern  as  well 
the  whole  community,  and  especially  the  religious 
societies  within  it,  as  the  immediate  parties  to  the 
quarrel.  They  represent  the  pressure  of  the  more 
reasonable  social  mind,  or  the  more  sensitive  con- 
science, upon  the  belligerents.  This  is  the  most  ob- 
vious moral  to  be  drawn  from  the  negotiations,  wheth- 
er successful  or  abortive,  in  connection  with  the  strikes 
of  the  dockers  in  London,  the  shoemakers  at  North- 
ampton, the  miners  in  Durham,  and  with  the  locked- 
out  at  Hull.  These  events  have  not,  indeed,  the 
intrinsic  significance  of  the  fact  we  noticed  above, 


TJie  Church  and  the  Working  Glasses  9 

the  action  of  the  working  men  on  the  strong  and  sen- 
sitive minds  that  have  chosen  to  work  for  or  live 
among  them.  Those  events  are  significant  as  ex- 
pressing common  tendencies  and  achieved  results, 
but  this  action  as  denoting  nascent  yet  potent  causes. 
The  meaning  of  the  former  can  in  a  manner  be  already 
measured,  the  latter  is  only  a  little  bit  of  leaven  just 
begun  to  act  within  the  lamp. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   ATTITUDE   OF   THE   MEN   TO   THE   CHURCHES. 

1.  But  while  the  churches  through  their  most 
honoured  representatives,  or  through  their  strongest 
and  most  resolute  sons,  have  turned  this  friendly  and 
helpful  face  towards  labour,  what  has  been  its  cor- 
respondent or  reciprocal  attitude?  The  help  has 
been  accepted  with  a  sort  of  proud  yet  indulgent 
gratitude,  as  if  for  duty  at  last  performed  by  one 
who  had  not  been  accustomed  to  perform  it;  but 
there  has  been  little  sign  of  any  changed  attitude  to 
the  faith  and  worship  of  the  Church.  The  men  who 
represent  labour,  and  the  labour  they  represent,  may 
be  quite  willing  to  enlist  the  ecclesiastic  as  a  recruit, 
but  they  show  no  inclination  of  joining  the  army  he 
leads,  or  of  submitting  to  his  discipline.  Thej  may 
hail  the  attempt  of  the  Church  to  fulfil  economic 
functions,  whether  as  mediator  or  as  teacher,  or  even 
seriously  propose  to  capture  her  as  the  chosen  citadel 
of  the  capitalist,  and  turn  her  into  the  stronghold 
of  labour  and  the  minister  of  the  democracy;  but 
they  do  not  mean  to  commit  themselves  to  her, 
whether  as  regards  her  policy  for  this  life  or  her 
dogmas  as  to  the  life  to  come.     Nor  need  we  wonder 


The  Attitude  of  the  Men  to  the  Church.         11 

at  their  attitude  ;  we  are  rather  tempted  to  commend 
it  as  both  reasonable  and  reverent.  The  Church  is 
infinitely  more  than  an  economic  institution;  the  man 
or  society  would  be  a  secularist  of  the  very  worst 
type  who  would  enter  it  simply  because  of  its  promise 
to  be  profitable  for  the  life  that  now  is.  This  is  a 
reason  worthy  of  the  suitor  for  social  recognition, 
but  not  of  the  blunt  integrity  of  the  English  work- 
man. Then  all  churches  are  historical  institutions; 
the  attitude  to  them  of  classes  and  bodies  of  men  is 
also  historical.  Agreement  on  a  current  question 
does  not  affect  an  attitude  which  depends  on  ancient 
and  permanent  causes.  If,  then,  we  would  discover 
how  the  Church  and  the  industrial  classes  are  to  be 
reconciled,  we  must  inquire  into  those  causes  which 
worked  their  estrangement  and  still  keep  them 
estranged.  This  estrangement  is  too  general  to  be 
explained  by  any  local  or  accidental  or  occasional 
cause,  or  indeed  any  cause  that  affects  only  one  of 
the  two  sides.  The  causes  are  of  so  common  and  so 
essential  a  kind  that  they  have  affected  and  do  affect 
equally  the  churches  and  the  industrial  classes,  both 
in  themselves  and  in  their  mutual  relations. 

2.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  estrangement 
can  properly  be  described  as  general  ;  but  it  is 
general  in  this  sense  that  (the  Graeco-Eussian  Church 
does  not  come  into  our  purview)  it  is  a  state  which 
all  churches  know  and  have  cause  to  lament.  The 
experience  of  the  Roman  Church  is  not  uniform,  but 
it  is  decisive  enough.  There  is  no  country  where 
the  anti-clerical  and  anti-Church  feeling  is  so  strong 
as  in  France,  and  it  is  intensest — becoming  almost  a 


12  Religion  in  History. 

sort  of  fanaticism — in  the  artisan  class.  The  Belgian 
workman  is  less  demonstrative  and  more  tolerant 
than  his  French  neighbour,  but  quite  as  little  does 
he  love  the  Church.  There  is  no  Church  in  the 
United  States  that  suffers  so  much  from  leakage,  or 
the  loss  of  those  immigrants  and  their  descendants 
who  were  hers  by  race,  as  the  Koman  Catholic.  It 
is,  of  course,  different  in  Ireland,  in  the  South 
American  Eepublics,  and  in  certain  of  the  countries 
of  Southern  Europe  ;  but  it  is  only  different  in  these 
cases  because  the  industrial  development  has  been 
arrested,  or  has  not  well  begun.  In  the  case  of 
Ireland,  indeed,  there  is  this  special  characteristic  : 
Catholicism  and  patriotism  have  only  been  different 
aspects  of  the  same  thing,  church  and  people  lay 
under  the  same  disabilities,  suffered  from  the  same 
penal  laws,  and  were  therefore  one  in  their  conflict 
for  justice  and  freedom.  But  as  regards  the  general 
question  the  significant  thing  is,  that  where  industry 
has  been  so  far  developed  as  to  allow  the  causes 
which  most  tend  to  alienation  to  operate,  the  Eoman 
religion  has,  so  far  from  preventing,  emphasized 
and  exasperated  the  effect.  The  Anglican  Church, 
too,  has  here  failed  signally,  often  in  spite  of 
her  many  beneficences,  sometimes  even  because 
of  the  form  her  beneficences  have  assumed.  There 
are  districts  in  England  where,  if  it  had  not  been 
for  certain  dissenting  bodies,  paganism  would  have 
practically  prevailed.  Her  debt  to  those  bodies  she 
can  never  pay,  and,  unhappily,  she  is  not  always 
willing  even  to  recognize  it,  at  least  in  a  form  that 
an  honourable  creditor  can   regard  as  recognition. 


The  Attitude  of  the  Men  to  the  Church.      13 

Methodism,  in  its  several  branches,  has  done  more 
for  the  conversion  and  reconciliation  of  certain  of  the 
industrial  classes  to  religion  than  any  other  English 
Church.  It  is  but  just  to  say  that  the  enfranchisement  of 
our  mining  and  agricultural  populations  made  this  evi- 
dent, that  their  regulative  ideas  were  religious  rather 
than  utilitarian  and  secular.  The  politician  finds  when 
he  addresses  the  peasantry  that  he  has  to  appeal  to 
more  distinctly  ethical  and  religious  principles  than 
when  ne  addresses  the  upper  or  middle  classes,  and 
we  may  hope  that  even  in  a  politician  the  principles 
he  appeals  to  may  ultimately  afiect  his  policy. 
Meanwhile  we  simply  note  that  it  is  the  local 
preacher  rather  than  the  secularist  lecturer  who  has, 
while  converting  the  soul,  really  formed  the  mind  of 
the  miner  and  labourer,  and  who  now  so  largely  rep- 
resents the  ideas  he  seeks  in  his  dim  and  inarticulate 
way  to  see  applied  to  national  policy  and  legislation. 
The  Congregational  and  the  Presbyterian  Churches 
have  been  more  successful  with  the  middle  than  with 
either  the  lower  or  the  upper  classes;  they  may  in- 
deed be  said  to  represent  the  older  English  Noncon- 
formity, but  while  the  latter  is  largely  Scotch,  the 
former  inherits  the  mind  and  traditions  of  the  burgh- 
ers and  the  yeomen  who  formed  the  main  body  of 
the  Independents  of  the  Commonwealth.  Theirs 
were  the  men  who  governed  England  from  '32  to  '68, 
and  who  have  not  been  inactive  since  then.  They 
are  mainly  the  men  who  have  created  our  industries 
and  extended  our  commerce,  and  made  the  con- 
science for  integrity  and  economy  in  the  English 
race.      These    things    are    not    said    by    way    of 


14  Religion  in  History. 

polemic  against  any  church,  or  of  apologetic 
on  behalf  of  any;  but  simply  by  way  of  stating  a 
fact  that  needs  to  be  explained.  Of  all  forms  of 
ecclesiastical  controversy,  the  most  sordid  and  mean 
is  the  form  of  mutual  reproach,  or  blame  for  failure 
where  there  has  been  common  guilt.  The  body  that 
has  helped  to  keep  any  class  or  any  proportion  of 
any  class  religious,  deserves  the  gratitude  of  all  the 
rest;  the  body  that  has  failed,  though  it  has  tried  to 
succeed,  deserves  at  least  their  sympathy  and  re- 
spect. But  when  our  churches  stand  face  to  face 
with  the  alienated  classes  of  our  great  cities  and  in- 
dustries, the  only  mood  that  becomes  any  and  is  in- 
cumbent upon  all,  is  one  of  humiliation  and  confes- 
sion of  sin  with  a  view  to  amendment  of  life.  But 
this  only  emphasizes  our  special  point — where  the 
effect  is  so  general  there  must  be  common  causes 
more  or  less  uniform  in  their  operation.  Our  prob- 
lem is  the  discovery  and  the  determination  of  these 
causes. 


CHAPTER  III. 

CAUSES,  APPARENT  AND  REAL,  OF  ALIENATION. 

1.  Now  among  these  causes  I  do  not  reckon  as 
primary,  either  in  time  or  in  importance,  what  is 
popularly  known  as  infidelity  or  unbelief.  No  doubt 
there  is  among  artisans  under  various  forms  and 
names  a  great  deal  of  vigorous  and  thoroughgoing 
negation.  Forty  years  ago  it  used  to  be  termed 
Secularism,  which  was  a  sort  of  instinctive  and  un- 
reasoned agnosticism.  Its  basis  was  a  rough-and- 
ready  doctrine  of  utility,  which  regarded  this  life  as 
the  only  real  object  or  field  of  knowledge,  and  judged 
everything  by  its  value  or  efficiency  in  helping  man 
to  live  it  honestly  and  happily.  Then,  under  the 
new  scientific  impulse,  came  a  wave  of  more  positive 
materialism,  and  doctrines  and  dicta  from  men  like 
Darwin  and  Huxley,  down  through  Tyndall  to  Mole- 
schott  and  Biichner,  were  repeated  and  interpreted 
into  a  sort  of  philosophy  of  existence,  though  now  and 
then  an  ideal  or  intellectual  element  was  so  introduced 
as  to  modify  the  conception  into  a  species  of  Pan- 
theism. The  critcism  which  was  its  polemic  against 
Christianity,  especially  so  far  as  directed  against  the 
Scriptures  as  sources  or  authorities  in  religion,  was 


16  Religion  in  History. 

mainly  antiquated,  as  it  were  a  posthumous  Deism. 
The  remarkable  thing  is  that  the  infidelity  of  the 
working  man  is  essentially  derivative,  an  acquired  or 
borrowed  thing;  and  the  men  from  whom  he  has 
borrowed  it  were  those  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
with  their  hard  and  prosaic  spirit,  their  unhistorical 
sense,  their  inability  to  see  anything  in  the  historical 
records  of  the  received  religion,  save  the  unreason  or 
combined  folly  and  hypocrisy  of  the  present  in  pro- 
fessing to  believe  that  such  books  could  be  of  divine 
origin  and  authority.  We  may  say,  then,  that  this 
borrowed  infidelity  is  an  efiect  rather  than  a  cause  of 
the  working  man's  estrangement  from  the  churches; 
it  is  an  apology  for  the  attitude  he  holds,  rather  than 
the  reason  why  he  assumed  the  attitude.  So  far  as 
careful  inquiries  and  observation  may  be  trusted,  we 
may  venture  to  affirm  that  the  number  of  unbelievers 
to  the  whole  class  is  proportionally  small,  though  it 
contains  some  men  of  marked  integrity  and  independ- 
ence of  mind.  Since,  then,  the  intellectual  reasons  or 
diflBculties'  must  be  held  to  be  secondary  causes  of 
disbelief,  we  may  find  the  primary  in  a  moral  convic- 
tion, the  belief  that  the  churches  are  not  religious 
realities,  not  bodies  organized  for  the  teaching  and 
doing  of  righteousness,  but  for  the  maintenance 
of  vested  interests  and  conventional  respectabilities. 
There  is  disbelief  in  the  churches  rather  than  in 
religion,  though,  when  the  disbelief  becomes  articu- 
late, it  tends  to  extend  to  the  ideas  and  history  in- 
volved in  the  claims  and  creeds  of  the  churches. 

The  distinction  between  disbelief  in  religion  and 
in  the  churches  may  seem  illicit,  but  is,  in  fact,  both 


Causes,  Apparent  and  Real,  of  Alienation.     11 

radical  and  real.  The  one  may  be  said  to  bo  in- 
tellectual, but  the  other  social  or  moral  and  emo- 
tional in  its  origin;  the  one  comes  to  a  man  through 
education,  but  the  other  through  the  experiences  of 
life.  Disbelief  in  religion  may  be  conjoined  with  con- 
formity to  a  church ;  disbelief  in  the  churches  involves 
the  refusal  to  be  identified  with  their  religion,  or  to 
join  in  their  profession  and  worship.  The  former  is 
a  state  of  things  not  unknown  in  the  upper  and 
educated  classes;  the  latter  is  more  congenial  to 
the  franker  and  less  illumined  intellect  of  the  work- 
man. The  cultured  man  lives  in  a  world  of  deli- 
cate shades  and  fine  gradations;  doubt  may  come 
through  a  hundred  channels,  till  the  strenuous  faith  of 
the  past  or  the  convinced  present  seems  to  him  only 
a  series  of  childlike  illusions;  but  he  may  so  feel  the 
inconvenience  both  for  himself  and  others  of  disturb- 
ing the  established  order  that  he  will  prefer  to  act  as 
if  what  he  knew  to  be  illusions  he  believed  to  be 
realities.  The  workman,  on  the  other  hand,  lives  in 
a  world  of  well-marked  lines  and  clear-cut  realities; 
his  thinking  has  always  the  merit  of  directness  and 
simplicity,  while  his  logic  works  with  the  rigour 
of  his  own  machines,  and  so  if  he  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  certain  things  are  illusory  or  unreal, 
he  finds  it  most  convenient  to  act  in  harmony  with 
the  conclusion  to  which  he  has  come.  Hence  the 
man  of  culture  may  be  a  speculative  agnostic  or 
philosophic  sceptic,  or  even  in  things  critical  and 
historical,  a  rationalist,  but  at  the  same  time,  for 
reasons  that  weigh  with  his  conventional  conscience, 
a  conforming  churchman  and  even  an  ecclesiastical 


18  Religion  in  History. 

conservative.  But  this  attitude  is  simply  unintelligi^ 
ble  to  the  unsophisticated  mind  of  the  artisan,  and  so 
to  assume  it  is  impossible  to  him;  he  simply  cannot 
understand  how  it  can  be  an  honest  thing  to  join  in 
professions  you  have  ceased  to  believe,  or  spare 
institutions  whose  central  ideas  you  conceive  to  be 
imaginary  or  false.  The  two  unbeliefs  are  thus 
generically  unlike;  the  one  is  the  unbelief  of  a  man 
whose  mind  has  outgrown  the  faith  of  a  world  with 
whose  social  order  he  is  satisfied,  and  wishes  to 
maintain;  the  other  is  the  unbelief  of  a  man  who  is 
dissatisfied  with  the  social  order  in  which  he  finds 
himself,  and  so  comes  to  doubt  the  ideas  which  are 
invoked  as  its  sanction  and  basis.  The  former 
infidelity  is  the  child  of  the  intellect,  but  the  latter 
of  experience;  the  one  cultivates  a  doubt  which 
allows  or  even  requires  him  to  support  the  church, 
but  the  other  faces  a  church  which  he  so  conceives 
as  to  be  compelled  to  doubt.  In  the  one  position 
there  is  fatal  insincerity,  in  the  other  vigorous  ve- 
racity; and  the  church  which  knew  its  opportunity  and 
mission  would  hope  more  from  the  mind  that  denied 
and  opposed  than  from  the  mind  that  doubted  and 
conformed. 

2.  We  have  been  concerned  here  simply  with  the 
analysis  of  phenomena  that  are  familiar  to  every  one 
who  knows  and  has  observed  both  the  educated  and 
the  working  classes.  And  this  analysis  has  illustrated 
the  position  that  the  infidelity  of  the  latter  is  an 
effect  rather  than  a  cause  of  the  alienation  from  the 
churches,  while  it  helps  to  explain  the  derivative 
character  of  the  arguments   used  to  defend  and 


Causes y  Apparent  and  Real,  of  Alienation.     19 

maintain  it.  But  this  only  throws  us  back  on  the 
prior  question  as  to  the  causes  of  this  alienation. 
And  here  two  things  have  to  be  observed:  first,  these 
causes  are  not  of  yesterday,  but  are  old,  have  been 
almost  imperceptible  in  growth,  and  gradual  yet 
continuous  in  their  action;  and  secondly,  they  have 
not  been  incidental  or  occasional,  but  belong  to  the 
complex  process  which  has  produced  our  present 
social  order.  The  function  of  the  Church  is  not  simply 
to  maintain  an  established  Christianity,  but  to  create 
it  anew  in  the  spirit  and  conscience  of  each  successive 
generation.  We  use  very  general,  and,  it  may  be, 
altogether  misleading  terms  when  we  speak  of  the 
present  as  being  the  heir  of  the  past.  The  heir,  in 
order  to  possess,  must  recreate  or  reconstitute  his 
inheritance,  assimilate  it  in  form  of  being  and  mode 
of  action  to  himself  and  his  world.  The  remarkable 
thing  in  the  law  of  heredity,  whether  individual  or 
collective,  is  not  what  man  does,  but  what  he  does 
not,  inherit.  The  son  may  repeat  his  father's  features, 
colour,  voice,  gait,  and  even  his  minuter  tricks  or 
niceties  of  manner,  but  yet  be,  as  regards  mind,  char- 
acter, faith,  his  exact  opposite,  i.e.  he  inherits  the 
accidents  or  outward  semblance,  not  the  intrinsic 
qualities  or  distinctive  characteristics.  And  this 
means  that  the  new  individual  constitutes,  in  a 
perfectly  real  sense,  out  of  himself  and  from  among 
the  old  conditions  a  new  world.  And  the  same 
principle  governs  the  evolution  of  society,  though, 
as  it  works  here  on  so  vast  a  scale,  the  succession 
is  less  rapid,  the  changes  more  gradual,  the  contrasts 
not  so  violent.     It  is  no  mere  fancy  of  the  philo- 


20  Religion  in  History. 

sophical  historian  that  each  century  has  a  character 
of  its  own;  it  is  by  what  is  distinctive  in  the 
character  of  each  that  the  progress  of  the  AYorld  is 
measured. 

Now,  it  is  in  conformity  with  this  law  that  we  say 
that  each  generation  must  have  a  Christianity  of  its 
own  born  anew  within  it,  and  not  simply  repeating 
the  traditions  or  appropriating  the  habits  of  the 
fathers.  No  single  generation  has  ever  been  com- 
pletely Christianized,  and  even  the  most  Christian  of 
all  the  past  generations,  whether  primitive  or  medi- 
aeval, would,  were  it  re-incorporated  and  judged  b}^ 
our  more  exacting  modern  standards,  be  considered 
hardly  Christian  at  all.  The  simpler  a  society  is, 
the  simpler  will  its  religion  be;  the  more  complex 
the  society,  the  richer  in  all  its  elements  and  the 
stronger  in  all  its  forces  must  the  religion  become, 
especially  if  it  has  to  satisfy  the  whole  nature, 
command  and  inspire  the  whole  of  life.  Now,  the 
social  evolution  has  with  us  been  vaster  and  more 
rapid  than  the  religious  or  ecclesiastical.  Society 
has  changed  as  the  Church  has  not;  it  falsifies  its 
living  past  by  attempting  to  retain  in  a  new  world 
the  organization,  methods,  ideals  that  were  made 
in  an  old,  and  were  excellently  adapted  to  the  world 
in  which  they  were  made,  and  to  a  vigorous  life 
within  it.  Adaptation  to  environment  is  a  necessity 
to  all  organisms;  it  is  only  by  variation  of  form  that 
continuity  of  life  can  be  secured.  Where  the 
Roman  Church  has  been  most  successful  in  main- 
taining her  ancient  ascendency  in  the  ancient  form, 
she  has  either  annihilated  progress,  i.e.  stopped  the 


Causes,  Apparent  and  Real,  of  Alienation.     21 

evolution  of  a  higher  order  in  society,  as  in  Spain, 
or  she  has  helped  to  reduce  it  to  a  mediaeval  tur- 
bulence, as  in  the  South  American  Republics.  But 
in  Protestant  countries  the  social  development  has 
outrun  the  religious,  and  it  will  only  be  by  the  re- 
ligious development  overtaking  the  social  that  the 
Church  will  be  able  to  reclaim  the  masses. 

This,  then,  is  the  general  position:  the  alienation 
of  the  industrial  classes  from  the  Church  is  a  result 
of  this  process  of  uneven  or  unequal  development, 
or  of  the  successive  stages  by  which  the  Church 
has  lost  adaptation  to  the  environment  within  which 
it  lives.  But  what  this  means  will  become  evident 
only  when  we  have  considered  the  stages  or  forms  of 
this  process  in  detail. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

INFLUENCE   OP  THE  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

We  begin  with  the  action  of  our  modern  political 
thought  and  history  on  the  mind  and  feelings  of  the 
classes  which  here  concern  us.  Of  this  immense 
subject  only  a  few  salient  points  can  be  touched. 

1.  At  the  outset  two  things  must  be  noted — first 
political  and  religious  thought  are  so  organically 
related,  that  each  is  but  a  form  of  the  other.  Politi- 
cal thought  is  the  religious  idea  applied  to  the  State. 
and  the  conduct  of  its  public  afi'airs,  while  religious 
thought  is  but  our  view  of  the  polity  of  the  universe, 
and  man's  relation  to  it.  It  follows  that  as  man 
thinks  in  the  one  field,  he  comes  to  think  also  in  the 
other;  the  unconscious  logic  which  develops  our 
instincts  or  intuitions  into  judgments  is  often  much 
more  rigorous  than  the  conscious  reasoning  which 
builds  up  our  intellectual  system  of  things.  And 
it  is  by  force  of  this  unconscious  logic  that  the 
classes  who  reason  because  they  feel,  bring  their 
political  and  religious  ideas  into  harmony.  And 
secondly,  we  live  in  the  first  century  since  the 
foundation  of  the  world  in  which  these  classes  have 


Injiuence  of  the  Political  Development.         23 

by  a  process  of  gradual  and  ordered  change  been, 
as  it  were,  emancipated,  become,  even  as  those  who 
were  erst  their  superiors,  possessed  of  political  power. 
The  promise  of  the  first  Christian  preachers  Chris- 
tian states  are  only  now  beginning  to  try  to  fulfil;  and 
though  this  result  has  been  achieved  through  the 
action  of  Christian  ideas,  yet  it  has  not  seldom  been  in 
the  face  of  the  now  active  and  now  passive  resistance 
of  Christian  societies,  or  their  official  representatives. 
In  the  Middle  Ages,  the  political  and  the  ec- 
clesiastical systems  were  strictly  supplementary  and 
harmonious;  the  one  was  feudal,  the  other  papal,  and 
both  within  their  limits  and  after  their  kind  patriar- 
chal. The  King  was  head  of  the  State,  and  all  with- 
in it  held  under  him;  the  Pope  was  head  of  the  Church, 
and  all  within  it  held  under  him.  Each  in  his  own 
order  reigned  by  divine  right,  though  attempts  were 
made  to  limit  the  power  of  the  one  by  charters  and  by 
parliaments,  and  the  authority  of  the  other  by  creeds 
and  councils.  But  the  qualifying  force  was  lodged 
in  the  one  case  in  the  barons  and  burghers,  in  the 
other  in  the  bishops  and  clergy;  as  regards  both 
the  multitude  was  dumb,  made  to  be  ruled  and  to  obey, 
not  to  reason  and  advise.  The  civil  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal potentates  might  reason  and  negotiate  and  differ 
concerning  their  respective  authorities  or  pro- 
vinces, but  in  these  high  aff'airs  the  people  had  no 
voice;  they  had  to  suff'er  the  ban  or  the  blessing,  as 
the  one  or  the  other  of  the  rival  authorities  decreed. 
The  Saxon  serf  in  some  respects  hardly  differed  from 
the  Roman  slave,  and  though  the  English  burgher 
and  yeoman  conquered  his  ft-eedom,  the  peasant  re- 


24  Religion  in  History. 

mained  the  son  of  the  bondwoman,  without  a  voice 
in  the  assembly  of  his  people. 

In  consequence  of  the  change  of  religion  the  old 
factors  of  order  in  England  were  new  combined,  the 
forces  from  beneath  were  not  relieved  and  called  into 
play.  The  King  could  without  fear  of  the  Pope  affirm 
his  divine  right,  and  he  so  did  it  as  to  compel  the 
barons  and  the  burghers  and  the  yeomen  to  qualify 
his  rights  by  theirs.  They,  after  a  century  of  struggle, 
triumphed,  and  after  the  kings  by  divine  right  came 
a  line  which  reigned  by  the  grace  of  the  aristocracy 
and  gentry.  The  rights  that  know  governed  were 
those  of  property,  and  they  proved  even  more  merci- 
less to  the  peasant  and  the  workman  than  the 
feudal  overlord  or  the  autocratic  king.  They  did  not 
assert  themselves  by  means  of  vassalage  or  villen- 
age  or  arbitrary  exactions,  but  mainly  by  the  slow 
growth  of  claims  which  devoured  ancient  privileges, 
and  of  new  laws  which  abolished  old  liberties  and 
rights.  And  under  this  reign  the  people  were  help- 
less, almost  as  dumb  as  they  had  been  in  the  old  feudal 
days.  But  change  was  at  hand;  the  idea  of  free 
speech  penetrated  downwards,  and  with  it  a  new 
order  of  rights  began  to  be  conceived.  There  are 
writers  who  can  cleverly  demonstrate  the  logical  ab- 
surdities that  lie  in  such  phrases  as  '  '■  the  rights  of 
man,"  and  by  analysis  eliminate  the  idea  of  rights 
from  any  conception  of  him  that  can  be  formed. 
But  all  phrases  are  relative,  and  have  some  histori- 
cal occasion  which  must  be  known  if  they  are  to  be 
understood.  ' '  The  rights  of  man  "  is  a  phrase  which 
must  be  construed  as  the  antithesis  to  the  rights  of 


Influence  of  the  Political  Development.         25 

special  or  favoured  classes,  kings  or  priests  or  peers. 
It  denotes  the  idea  which  Knox  expressed  in  his  fine 
reply  to  Queen  Mary:  '^  And  what  are  you  in  this 
commonwealth  ?  "  '  ^  A  subj  ect  born  within  the  same, 
Madam;  "  and  because  a  subject  with  a  place  as  real 
and  rights  as  valid  and  claims  to  consideration  as 
sacred  as  those  of  the  sovereign.  Once  this  idea  had 
penetrated  the  mind  of  the  multitude,  the  hour  of 
deliverance  from  the  narrower  and  more  violent 
rights,  regal,  clerical,  baronial,  was  at  hand. 

2.  But  the  new  ideas  had  to  struggle  hard  first 
for  a  footing,  then  for  victory;  and  the  conflict  was 
carried  on  not  without  sweat  and  dust.  The  estab- 
lished political  and  ecclesiastical  order  had  been,  as  it 
were,  woven  in  the  loom  of  time  into  a  single  web, 
and  to  unweave  the  web  seemed  like  undoing  the 
chief  work  of  time,  dissolving  society  into  chaos. 
On  the  one  side,  men  defended  the  political  order 
that  they  might  save  the  ecclesiastical;  on  the  other 
side,  men  assailed  the  ecclesiastical,  which  was 
the  more  vulnerable,  that  they  might  reach  the 
political.  The  supreme  calamity  of  French  Catholi- 
cism, or  rather  the  crime  which  no  later  sufl'erings 
can  ever  atone  for,  was  its  alliance  with  the  king  and 
the  Court.  The  king  had  been  a  convenient  instru- 
ment in  the  religious  wars;  by  his  help  Protestantism 
was  practically  annihilated,  and  it  was  thought  that 
since  he  was  so  good  for  one  thing,  he  could  be  made 
equally  good  for  all.  As  his  will  was  sovereign,  to 
control  him  was  to  control  France.  And  so  the 
great  concern  of  Catholicism  was  to  keep  possession 
of  the  king,  which  it  did  without  being  too  curious  as 


26  Religion  in  History. 

to  the  kind  and  quality  of  the  king  possessed.  But  in 
being  so  careful  of  him  it  lost  the  people,  and  pat  into 
the  hands  of  his  enemies,  who  were  therefore  aisothe 
enemies  of  his  church,  the  most  tremendous  weapon 
that  was  ever  levelled  against  religion.  For  in  their 
invj  the  assailants  did  not  distinguish  religion  from 
the  men  who  betrayed  it,  and  Christianity  was  made 
to  bear  and  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  Catholicism.  And  it 
did  suffer.  There  never  was  a  raillery  like  Yoltaire's, 
a  mockery  so  pitiless,  so  charged  with  scorn,  so  heated 
through  and  through  with  passion,  yet  so  perfectly 
controlled  and  adapted  to  its  end.  While  he  incar- 
nated, he  did  not  exhaust  the  spirit  of  revolt;  he  only 
inaugurated  its  reign.  The  Encyclopedists  opposed 
the  illumination  to  superstition;  Rousseau  the  state 
of  nature  to  the  state  of  custom  and  convention  and 
fictitious  inequality.  And  so  the  conflict  spread  from 
religion  and  the  Catholicism  which  was  held  to  be  its 
only  real  and  adequate  embodiment,  to  society  and  the 
State.  The  denial  passed  through  the  church  to  the 
king  it  had  crowned  with  divine  rights  and  declared  to 
be  most  Christian;  it  was  seen  that  he  had  neglected 
his  duties  to  the  lives,  as  much  as  the  church  had 
neglected  its  duty  to  the  minds  of  men.  And  so  the 
movement  which  began  with  the  Christ  of  the  Roman 
Church  as  'Hhe  Infamous"  it  was  to  erase,  ended 
in  the  erasure  of  the  monarch.  The  two  that  had 
stood  together  that  they  might  abolish  the  Protest- 
antism of  the  seventeenth  century,  fell  together  in 
the  consequent  revolution  of  the  eighteenth. 

3.  But  France  largely  determined  the  spirit  and 
form  of  our  modern  political  thought,  and  helped  to 


Influence  of  the  Political  Development.        27 

give  it,  especially  so  far  as  the  people  are  concerned, 
so  much  the  character  of  a  religious  revolt.  The 
books  which  had  at  the  end  of  last  century,  and 
throughout  the  first  half  of  this,  by  far  the  greatest 
influence  on  the  awakening  mind  of  the  English 
artisan,  The  Age  of  Reason  and  TJie  Rights  of  Man, 
were  steeped  in  the  spirit  of  France  and  the  Revolu- 
tion. No  doubt  they  found  here  friendly  conditions. 
The  Established  Church  was  torpid,  and  a  guardian 
of  obnoxious  interests  rather  than  a  teacher  of 
neglected  duties.  The  middle  classes  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  old  dissent,  the  peasantry  were  being 
reached  by  the  new  Methodism;  but  for  the  artisan 
,  no  one  seemed  specially  to  care.  His  food  was  a 
radical  philosophy,  a  popularized  version  of  the  Ency- 
clopedic; he  lived  in  the  age  of  reason,  and  believed 
in  the  charter  and  the  rights  of  man.  There  is  a 
remarkable  diflerence  at  this  period  in  the  respective 
attitudes  of  the  middle  and  the  working  classes  to 
politics  and  religion.  The  middle  classes  were  essen- 
tially religious,  Tom  Paine  was  a  name  they  abhorred; 
but  they  were  vigorous  reformers,  anxious  to  repeal 
disabilities,  to  simplify  and  ameliorate  law,  to  facili- 
tate the  creation  and  distribution  of  wealth,  to  hus- 
band the  national  resources,  and  to  use  them  in  the 
most  economical,  yet  profitable  and  productive  way. 
They  had  great  respect  for  property,  and  no  theory  as 
to  the  abstract  or  innate  rights  of  man  as  man  which 
they  thirsted  to  apply  to  politics  in  general,  and  the 
sufirage  in  particular.  But  the  working  classes  were 
more  rigorously  philosophical;  they  were  governed 
by  ideals  which  they  had  reasoned  out  and  applied 


28  Religion  in  History, 

to  the  organization  of  the  State;  a  man,  simply  be 
cause  he  was  a  man,  was  sacred  in  their  eyes,  and 
possessed  of  rights  which  were  proper  to  himself,  and 
did  not  depend  on  any  property,  great  or  small, 
he  might  hold.  On  this  ground  they  pleaded  for 
political  justice,  and  the  changes  it  required  were 
matters  of  right,  not  of  mere  expediency,  which, 
indeed,  was  to  them  a  peculiarly  abhorrent  concep- 
tion. But  to  this  political  philosophy  the  Church 
was  a  greater  offence  than  the  State;  it  was  the 
apotheosis  of  inequalities,  loved  rank  and  wealth, 
privilege  and  prescription,  forgot  the  poverty  of  its 
founders,  who  had  laboured  with  their  hands,  and  of 
all  the  beatitudes  most  believed  the  one  the  Master 
had  neglected  to  utter,  Beati  possidentes.  With  the 
Anglican  Church,  then,  they  felt  that  as  now  con- 
stituted they  could  have  no  part  or  lot.  As  Estab- 
lished it  was  the  creation  of  privilege,  as  Episcopal 
it  embodied  to  them  the  hated  aristocratic  principle, 
as  administered,  it  regarded  the  people  as  children  or 
paupers,  and  not  as  reasonable  and  independent  men. 
As  to  the  Free  Churches,  those  of  the  older  dissent 
were  too  plutocratic,  too  much  governed  by  class 
feeling — an  interested  society,  whose  heart  was  where 
its  interests  were,  with  the  employers  and  the  trades- 
men; while  those  of  the  later  dissent  were  too  emo- 
tional, too  little  intellectual,  so  concerned  with  the 
future  as  to  forget  the  present.  So  they  reasoned, 
and  they  acted  as  they  reasoned;  stood  aloof  from 
the  churches,  criticized  them,  disliked  them,  doubted 
their  reality,  denied  their  sincerity,  and  became 
sceptical  of  all  they  believed. 


Influence  of  the  Political  Development.        29 

4.  So  far  we  have  been  strictly  historical  and 
expository,  but  now  it  is  time  to  confess  that  the 
churches  had  in  them  more  than  enough  to  justify 
this  attitude.  Since  then  they  have  changed  in 
many  ways  for  the  better,  but  they  must  be  prepared 
to  change  still  more  if  they  would  win  back  what 
they  have  lost.  For  one  thing,  it  is  impossible  to 
maintain  an  aristocratic  church  in  a  democratic  state, 
save,  indeed,  as  the  church  of  the  aristocracy,  their 
dependents  and  imitators.  Such  a  church  is  easy 
to  maintain,  at  least  so  long  as  the  aristocracy  are 
able  and  willing  to  maintain  it;  yet  its  maintenance 
is,  as  regards  national  religion,  a  thing  of  infinite 
insignificance.  We  need  the  same  sort  of  harmony 
between  the  ideas  of  Church  and  State  in  the  modern 
as  there  was  in  the  mediseval  mind.  Only  in  a 
feudal  state  can  a  papal  church  be  in  place,  and  a 
church  which  contradicts  the  whole  spirit  and  genius 
of  democracy  may  within  a  free  state  be  the  church 
of  a  class,  but  can  never  be  the  home  of  the  collective 
people.  The  principles  that  regulate  their  political 
will  regulate  their  ecclesiastical  thinking;  in  a  State 
''broad  based  upon  the  people's  will,"  the  only 
church  that  has  any  chance  of  continuance  must  be 
one  whose  polity  has  the  same  basis,  and  the  will 
that  is  the  basis  must  be  the  main  factor  of  order 
and  organization.  Of  course,  a  church  may  argue 
that  its  polity  was  a  matter  of  revelation,  that  its 
order  was  given  to  it,  that  its  orders  have  been  his- 
torically maintained,  and  are  of  its  very  essence. 
But  these  are  to  the  people  mere  theories;  about 
them  scholars  may  like  to  argue — for  they  are  per- 


30  Religion  in  History. 

sons  who  dearly  love  discussions  about  points  where 
conjecture  has  free  scope  and  positive  proof  is  im- 
possible; but  for  men  of  thought  or  action  such 
theories  have  no  worth.  Yet,  however  this  may  be, 
one  thing  is  clear,  the  will  that  has  become  an 
efficient  factor  in  the  State  will  never  be  content 
with  a  Church  which  simply  reduces  it  into  a  mere 
receptivity  or  political  inefficient.  And  the  people 
are  even  more  within  their  rights  in  claiming  an 
active  place  in  the  conduct  and  legislation  of  the 
Church  than  in  those  of  the  State.  They  are  but 
returning  to  the  original  idea  and  practice.  The 
early  churches  were  real  democracies;  their  citizens 
had  all  the  privileges  of  the  fully  enfranchized;  and 
the  constituents  of  the  modern  ought  to  have  the 
place  and  the  privileges  of  those  of  the  ancient 
churches.  But,  of  course,  the  cardinal  principle  of 
the  ancient  Church  must  be  maintained  in  the  mod- 
ern; its  people  must  be  the  people  of  God,  for  what 
other  sheep  can  be  of  this  fold?  On  this  matter  the 
democratic  feeling  is  altogether  sound;  it  loves  real- 
ity, dislikes  sham,  pretence,  and  make-believe.  It 
does  not  wish  to  see  a  man  who  has  no  religion  busy 
himself  with  religious  concerns;  it  does  wish  to  see 
a  man  who  professes  religion  be  and  do  as  he  pro- 
fesses. And  if  the  Church  be  organized  and  admin- 
istered by  the  really  religious,  and  look  jealously  to 
the  character  of  those  who  compose  it,  then  cer- 
tainly the  English  workman  will  be  the  first  to  give 
it  the  homage  of  that  respect  which  is  the  earliest 
and  simplest  form  of  faith. 


CHAPTER  V. 

INFLUENCE  OP  SOCIETY  AND   THE   SOCIAL  SPIRix. 

1.  But  there  are  social  tendencies  and  a  social 
temper  which  are  even  more  divisive  in  their  action 
than  political  thought  and  feeling.  These  seem  to 
be  increasing  in  strength  rather  than  decreasing. 
The  more  highly  specialized  our  industrial  life  be- 
comes, the  more  divided  our  society  appears  to 
grow.  The  plutocracy  is  ever  pressing  on  the  heels 
of  the  aristocracy,  and  with  the  small  pride  but 
great  vanity  that  seeks  to  forget  the  rock  whence  it 
was  hewn,  it  deepens,  in  the  very  degree  that  it  suc- 
ceeds, the  line  that  divides  the  upper  from  the  lower 
classes.  Masters  and  workmen  are  every  year  grow- 
ing farther  apart,  becoming  rivals  that  with  fear  and 
distrust  jealously  watch  and  willingly  outwit  each 
other.  The  old  personal  relations  between  them  are 
being  lost.  Limited  liability  companies  are  em- 
ployers, but  not  masters,  and  directors  feel  respon- 
sibility to  shareholders  a  more  immediate  and  exact- 
ing thing  than  concern  for  their  men.  Associations 
and  unions,  too,  tend  to  place  their  relations  on  a 
strictly  impersonal  and  financial  basis.  The  master 
will  not  act  without  the  approval  of  his  association, 


32  Religion  in  History. 

or  the  workman  without  the  sanction  of  his  union, 
and  they  negotiate  through  ofiBcials  ^nd  in  pursu- 
ance of  a  policy  rather  than  as  men.  Then  the  new 
social  hunger  affects  both.  The  unions  differentiate 
the  workmen.  The  skilled  and  unskilled  are  divided 
by  a  gulf  over  which  intelligence  of  each  other's 
wellbeing  can  hardly  pass.  The  finest  gradations 
01  feeling  and  social  sense  distinguish  the  various 
crafts,  and  within  what  seems  the  same  craft  status 
IS  determined  by  the  quality  and  rarity  of  the  skill. 
And  why  should  not  an  aristocracy  of  art  be  known 
to  workmen  as  well  as  to  artists?  why  may  social 
distinction,  based  on  the  kind  and  degree  of  skill 
required,  be  allowed  to  professions  and  denied  to 
handicrafts?  Still,  if  the  unions  diflTerentiate  the 
craftsmen  they  unite  the  workers,  but  the  social 
jOins  with  the  industrial  tendency  in  making  the  di- 
vision from  the  employer  absolute.  The  master  does 
not  love  to  live  among  his  men;  he  prefers  the  so- 
ciety of  his  suburb;  most  of  all,  where  he  can  com- 
mand it,  a  town  house  where  he  and  his  womankind 
can  see  society  and  enjoy  the  gaieties  of  the  season. 
This  is  a  feature  ominous  of  serious  social  change. 
The  old  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire  manufacturer 
was  a  man  of  shrewd  mind,  but  simple  tastes.  He 
lived  quite  plainly,  and  he  worked  hard.  And 
though  he  and  his  work-people  had  many  a  tussle, 
ending  now  and  then  in  a  violence  and  destruction 
quite  unknown  in  these  days,  yet  they  knew  each 
other,  understood  each  other,  and  learned  through 
their  common  life  and  toil  to  cultivate  a  sort  of 
genial  brotherhood.      But  the  head  of  a  great  firm 


Influence  of  Society  and  the  Social  Spirit.     33 

is  mostly  invisible;  he  is  a  name  to  his  people,  and 
nothing  more;  his  people  are  to  him  part  of  his  ma- 
chinery, distinguished  from  the  other  parts  by  being 
less  manageable,  and  when  deranged  more  difficult 
to  repair.  And  so  they  tend  to  fall  ever  farther 
apart,  to  influence  each  other  less,  to  be  less  just  to 
each  other,  to  care  for  nothing  save  the  profit  to  be 
got  from  the  labour  the  one  seeks  to  sell  and  the 
other  to  buy. 

2.  Now  the  churches  have  hitherto  tended  to 
follow  the  path  of  increasing  social  specialization, 
which  is  the  line  of  least  resistance,  and  to  grow  into 
societies  for  the  demarcation  and  consecration  of 
class.  And  the  more  they  have  done  so,  the  more 
distasteful  they  have  become  to  working  men.  There 
is  nothing  they  so  abhor  as  the  social  distinction 
which  claims  a  religious  sanction  and  assumes  a 
religious  shape;  it  wounds  them  in  the  most 
sensitive  part.  They  cannot  believe  in  a  God  who 
regards  a  man  as  any  the  better  for  the  accident  of 
his  birth,  or  of  superior  dignity  because  of  his  rank, 
and  they  will  not  respect  a  society  which  claims  to 
represent  God  on  the  earth,  and  yet  puts  its  trust  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  or  boasts  of  its  aristocratic  con- 
nections, or  leans  for  support  on  some  plutocrat  who 
is  loudly  generous  without  being  plainly  just.  Nor 
are  they  any  more  enamoured  of  churches  composed 
altogether  of  people  of  their  own  class,  for  this  is 
only  another  sort  of  insult  to  their  sensitive  pride. 
And  this  pride  expresses  a  true  feeling,  the  feeling 
that  as  all  men  are  equal  before  God,  so  in  His  church 
there  ought  to  be  no  respect  of  persons, — saintliness 


34  Beligion  in  History, 

alone  being  recognized  as  honourable  and  dis- 
tinguished. And  this  feeling  may  be,  and  ought  to 
be,  as  much  outraged  by  the  workman  who  will  not 
for  social  reasons  worship  with  his  master,  as  by  the 
master  who  will  not  for  similar  reasons  worship  with 
his  workman.  If  wealth  were  wise,  there  is  nothing 
«t  would  more  dread  than  the  separation  of  classes  in 
the  house  of  God,  or  the  separation  of  different  houses 
of  God  to  different  classes;  and  if  it  were  good  as 
well  as  wise  there  is  nothing  it  would  so  little  allow. 
The  master  who  goes  to  worship  where  only  other 
masters  are,  does  his  best  to  alienate  himself  from 
his  people,  to  lower  religion  in  their  eyes,  and  to 
bring  on  the  social  revolution;  for  the  only  salt  that 
can  preserve  society  is  sympathy  and  communion  in 
the  most  serious  things  of  the  spirit  between  all 
classes.  And  this  means  that  into  the  Church  the 
sense  and  the  air  of  social  superiority  must  not  be 
allowed  to  come.  The  attitude  of  patronage  or 
condescension  is  here  entirely  out  of  place  and  purely 
mischievous;  for  in  matters  of  religion  the  cottage 
may  be  more  able  to  play  the  Lady  Bountiful  to  the 
hall,  than  the  hall  to  the  cottage.  And  the  Church, 
if  it  is  wise,  will  prefer  a  workman  qualified  to 
serve  to  even  a  qualified  master;  for  while  society  is 
always  ready  to  honour  position,  it  ought  to  be  the 
distinction  and  privilege  of  the  Church  jealously  both 
to  see  and  to  show  that  it  honours  spiritual  fitness, 
and  not  rank  or  social  status.  And  if  master  and 
workman  are  associated  on  equal  terms  in  church 
affairs,  they  will  attain  the  mutual  knowledge  and 
develop  the  mutual  respect  that  will  make  intercourse 


influence  of  Society  and  the  Social  Spirit.     35 

on  other  things  more  pleasant  and  reasonable.  If  the 
Church  could  secure  this  service  according  to  spiritual 
gifts,  it  would  do  more  for  social  order  and  stability 
than  any  possible  legislation. 

This  is  written  in  a  Scotch  manse,  and  under  the 
influence  of  the  memories  it  awakens.  Here  pres- 
bytery nas  been  an  extraordinary  power;  of  the  re- 
ligious people  of  Scotland  ninety  per  cent,  are  within 
its  fold,  and  its  power  has  been  largely  due  to  its 
parity,  the  way  in  which  it  has  enlisted  men  of  all 
classes  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  It  was  within 
my  recollection  no  unusual  thing  to  see  as  members 
of  the  same  session,  all  duly  ordained  elders  charged 
with  the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  congregation,  the 
laird,  the  school-master,  the  doctor,  the  farmer,  the 
farm  servant,  or  shepherd;  and  of  these  I  have  known 
the  last  to  be  the  man  of  finest  character,  of  most 
wisdom  in  council  and  greatest  spiritual  weight  in 
the  congregation  or  parish.  Indeed,  as  a  fact,  from 
the  experience  of  one  who  was  himself  for  several 
happy  years  the  moderator  of  a  kirk-session,  this 
ought  to  be  told — that  the  person  who  above  all 
others  stands  out  in  his  memory  as  a  man  of  delicate 
feeling,  of  clear,  yet  charitable  judgment,  was  a 
working  quarryman.  And  the  presence  of  such  a 
man  in  a  high  ministerial  office,  elected  and  ordained 
to  it  by  the  act  and  sanction  of  the  Church,  was  a 
good  to  all  concerned.  The  laird,  the  school-master, 
the  doctor,  and  the  farmer  could  not  but  respect  the 
hind  or  the  shepherd  whose  words  were  often  wiser 
than  their  own,  and  in  him  they  respected  his  whole 
class.     It,  too,  was  dignified  by  the  office  he  filled  so 


36  Religion  in  History. 

worthily,  and  the  words  of  reproof  he  had  to  speak 
at  the  cottage  hearth,  or  of  consolation  at  some 
humble  death-bed,  were  tempered  by  a  feeling  of  kin- 
ship, even  when  the  sense  of  spiritual  vocation  most 
burdened  his  spirit.  Again  must  I  express  the  sober 
and  deep  conviction — the  church  that  dares  to  associ- 
ate its  poor  with  its  rich  in  the  same  service  when 
both  are  alike  qualified  for  it,  is  the  only  church  en- 
titled to  command,  or  worthy  to  receive  the  obedience 
and  the  love  of  both. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

INFLUENCE  OF  THE  INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

1.  But  beside  the  political  and  social  tendencies 
we  must  place  the  industrial.  The  harder  the  struggle 
for  existence  grows,  the  harder  does  it  become  to  be 
religious.  If  the  wolf  is  not  only  at  the  door,  but 
has  to  be  held  out  by  sheer  strength  of  muscle,  we 
can  scarcely  expect  the  man  who  holds  it  to  think 
of  other,  even  though  they  be  higher  things.  In 
order  to  worship  there  must  be  not  only  a  day  of 
rest  for  the  man,  but  a  rested  man  for  the  day.  If 
its  hours  are  mostly  needed  to  sleep  off  the  fatigue 
or  lassitude  of  the  week,  it  can  be  little  used  for 
worship.  And  if  the  only  religious  exercise  of  the 
week  be  on  the  Sunday,  the  exercise  will  soon  grow 
burdensome  and  irritating.  Now  the  conditions 
under  which  work  is  done  are  increasingly  unfavour- 
able to  the  cultivation  of  the  religious  spirit.  Com- 
petition grows  every  year  keener,  the  weaker  men  are 
pushed  downward,  the  abler  men  find  it  harder  to  rise, 
or  even  to  make  a  beginning,  and  where  time  is  so 
imperious  in  its  claims,  little  thought  can  be  spared 
for  eternity.  Possibly  the  matter  may  be  put  most 
closely  by  the  statement  of  an  actual  but  most  typical 


38  Religion  in  History, 

case — that  of  a  Yorkshire  village,  which  would  be  a 
goodly  western  town.  It  was  once  a  great  evangelical 
centre,  had  quite  an  army  of  home  missionaries, 
and  created  congregations  and  schools  in  towns  much 
more  important  but  less  religious  than  itself.  Its 
industry  was  weaving,  which  it  cultivated  with  old- 
fashioned  leisure.  The  men  wove  in  their  own 
houses  or  sheds,  regulated  their  own  hours,  and  were 
never  too  busy  to  discuss  a  question  in  politics  or  a 
problem  in  theology.  They  had  time  after  breakfast 
for  morning  prayers,  and  in  the  evening  the  family  as- 
sembled for  worship.  It  was  the  proud  boast  of  the 
village  that  at  least  once  every  day  the  sound  of  psalm 
and  of  prayer  could  be  heard  in  its  houses.  But  steam 
came,  and  the  power-loom  and  the  great  factory,  with 
''Hands  "  whose  hours  and  work  were  as  rigorously 
regulated  as  the  looms  they  tended.  The  old  leisure, 
with  the  old  home  life  it  allowed,  was  no  more. 
Breakfast  became  a  hurried  meal,  time  enough  to 
eat,  but  time  for  nothing  more;  the  men  and  women 
who  came  home  in  the  evening  were  tired,  so  ex- 
hausted with  the  heated  atmosphere  that  they  craved 
the  open  air,  with  a  sound  in  the  ears  that  made  the 
old  animated  talk  an  irritation.  So  the  old  habits 
were  broken  off,  and  new  and  less  excellent  habits 
formed.  The  women  in  the  mill  lost  their  domestic 
feeling,  and  became  noisier,  coarser,  more  masculine, 
liking  the  factory  as  freedom,  hating  the  home  as 
drudgery.  And  the  men  lost  their  old  quieter  and 
more  intellectual  interests,  grew  fond  of  excitement, 
of  amusements  noisier  than  the  noisy  looms.  And 
so  the  passion  was  awakened  for  the  athletics  that 


Influence  of  the  Industrial  Development.        39 

supplied  opportunities  to  drink  and  gamble,  and  the 
more  it  developed  the  more  averse  they  became  to 
the  old  religious  life,  indeed  incompetent  for  it  in 
its  old  staid  simplicity.  May  we  not  say,  then,  that 
this  industrial  development  has  created  conditions 
that  have  made  religion  indefinitely  harder  to  the 
man  who  must  keep  pace  with  it  in  order  to  live? 

2.  But  it  is  easier  to  see  these  evils  than  to  discover 
a  remedy  which  the  churches  can  supply.  The  evils 
are  consequents  inseparable  from  the  conditions  under 
which  our  industries  have  been  developed,  rather  than 
from  the  development  itself,  and  the  remedy  must 
come,  not  from  arresting  the  development,  but  chang- 
ing the  conditions.  Whatever  makes  the  struggle  for 
life  not  less  strenuous  or  inevitable,  but  less  mechani- 
cal and  monotonous,  will  conduce  to  a  happier  spirit 
in  the  workman.  It  is  not  the  work  that  kills 
idealism,  but  the  sordid  conditions  within  and  with- 
out the  worker.  And  of  these  the  inner  are  the 
fontal;  and  so  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  en- 
rich and  ennoble  his  soul,  beget  in  him  purer  tastes, 
and  evoke  higher  capacities.  This  is  a  thing  that 
ought  to  be  considered  from  the  very  beginning 
of  his  intelligent  being,  attempted  in  our  schools, 
and  incorporated  in  our  systems  of  education.  The 
school  ought  to  be  made  as  bright  and  beautiful  as 
possible,  the  imagination  ought  to  be  cultivated  as 
well  as  the  understanding,  and  artistic  faculty  made 
as  real  an  end  as  technical  skill.  If  taste  or  the  in- 
tellect could  be  so  developed  that  to  satisfy  it  became 
as  instinctive  and  imperious  a  need  in  the  workman 
as  in  the  cultivated  lawj^er,  or  doctor,  or  statesman,— 


40  Religion  in  History. 

and  these  are  certainly  often  more  cruelly  overworked 
than  he — then  he  would  even  as  they  pluck  from  the 
very  heart  of  his  toil  the  moments  needed  for  the 
refreshment  of  his  mind  or  the  culture  of  his  spirit. 
Then,  there  ought  to  be  accessible  to  him  places 
where  he  could  cultivate  the  tastes  which  had  been 
developed  within.  The  bath  has  been  a  great  refin- 
ing agency,  for  physical  is  near  nf  Vjn  to  spiritual 
cleanliness;  but  these  both  can  flourk*  ^^nly  where 
the  means  for  their  being  can  be  forbid,  and  the 
churches  ought  to  be  as  jealous  about  the  condi- 
tions necessary  to  intellectual  and  spiritual  health  as 
our  public  authorities  are  about  those  needful  for  the 
physical.  Museums,  picture  galleries,  and  palaces 
of  delight  may,  without  a  prepared  people,  be  worse 
than  useless;  indeed,  only  haunts  for  the  idle;  but 
to  a  people  prepared  they  may  be  made  high  means 
of  grace. 

These  two  things,  then,  the  churches  ought  to  do 
their  best  to  create  and  to  cultivate,  the  faculties 
that  need  intellectual  and  spiritual  exercise  for  their 
very  being,  and  the  opportunities  and  means  for 
keeping  them  in  exercise.  For  the  more  these  be- 
come necessaries  to  a  man,  the  more  open  will  he  be 
to  religious  and  moral  influences.  But  these  things 
must  not  stand  alone;  recreation  and  amusement  are 
growing  necessities  to  our  industrial  population,  and 
there  are  no  agencies  more  able  to  refine  or  brutalize. 
And  for  the  moment  the  brutalizing  force  seems  the 
stronger.  Gambling  threatens  to  be  the  ruin  of  all 
manly  sport,  while  the  passions  it  evokes  and  the 
drinking  it  encourages  are  making  great  matches 


tnjluence  of  the  Industrial  Development.        41 

more  a  terror  to  decency  than  a  recreation  to  weari- 
ness. To  refine  our  amusements  would  be  a  most 
religious  work,  and  one  that  religious  societies 
might  very  well  undertake,  even  with  some  hope  of 
success.  Yet  they  would  need  to  begin  above  rather 
than  below;  it  is  precisely  in  the  point  of  amuse- 
ments that  the  upper  classes  act  most  mischievously 
on  the  lower,  and  provoke  the  imitation  that  is  here 
worst  flattery.  If  the  church  could  persuade  our 
gilded  youth  so  to  improve  their  pleasures  as  to  re- 
form their  manners,  it  would  help  to  make  the  amuse- 
ments of  all  classes  purer  and  healthier.  But  the 
most  needful  thing  of  all  is  the  recreation  of  the  home, 
for  in  industrial  England  it  has  almost  ceased  to  be. 
Increased  domesticity  means  the  increase  of  all  the 
finer  aflections,  the  rise  of  all  the  more  gracious 
cares,  and  hopes,  and  loves.  And  where  these  are, 
religion  is  never  far  away;  and  where  they  are  not, 
it  will  only  be  an  external  and,  as  it  were,  manufac- 
tured thing.  It  seems,  therefore,  as  if  the  recovery 
of  the  home  were  the  final  necessity  of  the  situation. 
If  only  the  church  could  rebuild  the  home,  it  would 
create  the  conditions  that  would,  even  in  the  face  of 
our  modern  industrial  development,  make  all  the  old 
chivalries  and  graces  of  religion  still  possible. 


CHAPTER  YII. 

INFLUENCE   OF   THE   INTELLECTUAL    MOVEMENT. 

1.  But  alongside  the  industrial  development  we 
must  place  the  intellectual.  The  last  half-century 
has  been  a  period  of  remarkable  mental  activity  and 
change — certainly  much  greater  among  the  working 
than  among  the  leisured  and  professional  classes. 
In  this  period  the  penny  morning  and  the  halfpenny 
evening  newspaper  have  been  created,  and  has  ceased 
to  be  a  mere  news-sheet  or  political  organ,  and 
become  a  medium  for  all  sorts  of  intelligence — 
sporting  and  scientific,  social  and  literary.  The 
newspaper  has  become,  as  it  were,  a  circulating 
national  library  containing  all  kinds  of  stuff,  good, 
bad,  and  indifferent,  always  appetizing,  though  not 
always  wholesome  and  refreshing.  In  the  old 
Chartist  days  newspapers  were  few,  but  they  were 
filled  with  a  serious  purpose,  serious  men  read  them, 
passed  them  from  hand  to  hand,  and  seriously  dis- 
cussed their  contents.  Now,  though  many  journals 
are  high-toned,  not  a  few  are  edited  on  the  principle 
that  they  must  please  to  live,  and  the  pleasure  they 
conceive  is  of  no  noble  or  generous  order.  There 
are  society  papers  for  the  working  as  for  the  upper 


Influence  of  the  Intellectual  Movement.       43 

classes,  and  each  is  spiced  with  the  sauce  its 
readers  most  relish.  Sensations  are  loved  below 
as  well  as  above,  but  their  flavour  depends  not  on 
mystery  or  innuendo,  but  on  blunt  brutality.  The 
records  of  the  police  courts  are  racy  reading,  but 
still  racier  the  filthy  gossip  of  backstairs  and 
sporting-house  and  club.  The  sins  of  the  west 
end  are  well  known  in  the  east,  the  achievements 
of  every  noble  lord  who  has  distinguished  himself 
in  the  divorce  court  or  a  gambling  hell  are  written 
out  in  full;  and  where  the  follies  and  crimes  of  the 
aristocracy  are  concerned  the  democracy  has  a  good 
memory.  These  things  are  read  by  many  because 
unclean,  but  by  others  because  they  speak  of  judg- 
ment to  come.  And  this  element  has  a  subtle 
way  of  penetrating  even  the  graver  thought  and 
argument  of  the  people.  I  shall  never  forget  the 
loathing  which  was  awakened  by  the  gruesome  and 
sensual  suggestions,  touching  certain  sacred  persons 
and  histories,  made  by  what  professed  to  be  an 
organ  of  advanced  thought.  It  was  the  severest  shock 
my  faith  in  the  intellectual  character  of  the  free- 
thinking  workman  ever  received.  But  *t  was  signi- 
ficant of  the  mental  atmosphere  created  by  the 
society  newspaper  wherever  it  circulates,  whether 
among  the  upper  ten  thousand  or  the  lower  twenty 
millions. 

Yet  this  is  a  digression  on  intellectual  deteriora- 
tion rather  than  development.  Let  us  hope  that 
these  things  represent  only  a  muddy  eddy  in  the 
main  onward  moving  and  clarifying  stream;  and 
then  mark    the    signs  of   mental    expansion    and 


4:4:  Beligion  in  History, 

activity.  The  industrial  classes  have  proved  them- 
selves to  possess  political  capacity  in  a  high  degree. 
They  have  had  statesmen  and  legislators  of  their 
own  raising;  their  unions  have  exhibited  as  much 
organizing  and  administrative  genius  as  could  be 
found  in  any  modern  government.  They  are  in- 
deed, whatever  view  we  may  take  of  their  means 
and  action,  a  marvellous  creation,  accomplished  in 
spite  of  innumerable  difficulties,  both  internal  and 
external.  And  this  capacity  is  beginning  to  con- 
cern itself  with  the  State.  The  old  Chartist  was 
primarily  a  politician;  he  was  concerned  about  legis- 
lation and  government,  he  wanted  to  be  a  citizen 
and  to  have  the  State  so  constituted  that  there 
would  be  room  and  a  function  in  it  for  him;  but 
the  modern  trades-unionist  is  primarily  an  econ- 
omist, concerned  about  labour  and  its  rights — how 
to  sell  it  to  the  best  advantage,  and  how  to  main- 
tain its  price  even  in  a  falling  market.  Yet,  as 
the  Chartist  saw  lying  behind  his  politics  the  field 
of  economics,  so  the  "Unionist  looks  through  his 
economics  at  politics,  not,  indeed,  as  an  end,  but 
as  a  means:  in  other  words,  he  comes  to  parliament 
through  the  union,  and  all  legislation  is  but  a  vehicle 
for  its  economical  action.  But  what  concerns  us 
here  is  the  mental  and  moral  discipline  involved 
in  the  organization  and  administration  of  the  unions, 
and  so  the  kind  and  quality  of  the  men  now  being 
formed  within  labour,  both  for  its  sectional  direction 
and  its  place  in  national  politics.  They  are  within 
their  own  order  distinctly  statesmen  and  legisla- 
tors,   and   their   class   must   be    measured    by    its 


Influence  of  the  Intellectual  Movement        45 

highest  and  strongest  members,  not  by  its  lowest 
and  feeblest. 

Then,  education  has  extended,  and  still  extends 
and  improves;  the  school  is  now  common,  and  the 
School  Board  is  a  body  with  higher  aims  than  the 
statesmen  who  created  it  ever  dreamed  of.  The 
people  are  not  so  easily  satisfied  as  their  representa- 
tives, they  want  higher  and  more  efficient  instruction, 
and  the  more  they  control  the  board  the  more  they 
get  what  they  want.  And  so  to  the  primary  has 
been  added  the  higher  Board  school,  and  to  both  the 
technical  and  the  continuation  school.  And  as  the 
ability  to  read  is  created,  so  is  the  opportunity  for 
its  exercise.  Free  libraries  and  reading-rooms  now 
exist  in  all  our  cities  and  considerable  towns,  their 
number  still  increases,  and  as  fast  as  it  increases  the 
space  is  occupied  and  the  demand  rises  for  more. 
And  there,  through  novel  and  history,  through  science 
and  biography,  through  philosophy  and  theology, 
through  criticism  and  poetry,  the  people  are  being 
educated,  and  by  their  own  will  and  at  their  own 
expense  are  carrying  forward  the  work  of  the  schools. 
And  a  special  literature  is  growing  up  to  meet  their 
demand.  For  their  enlightenment  science  ceases  to 
be  technical,  and  becomes  so  simple  that  he  who  reads 
may  run,  history  is  cultivated  by  masters  of  literary 
style,  travels  are  made  as  fascinating  as  fiction,  and 
fiction  is  as  full  of  accurate  knowledge  as  if  it 
were  science.  Men  who  once  knew  no  story  but  the 
Pilgrim's  Progress  now  resid  Thackeray  and  Dickons, 
Walter  Scott  and  George  Eliot;  or  those  whose  only 
history  book  was  the  Old  Testament,   now  read 


46  Religion  in  History, 

Carlyle  and  Froude,  Gardiner  and  Lecky;  or  those 
whose  only  poetry  was  Watts'  or  Wesley's  Hymns, 
now  study  Tennyson  and  Browning,  Arthur  Hugh 
Clough  and  Matthew  Arnold.  And  they  cannot 
read  these  things  without  getting  a  certain  largeness 
of  view  or  a  critical  attitude  that  makes  them  im- 
patient with  everything  that  savours  of  a  narrower 
and  more  unreasoning  world. 

2.  Now,  has  there  been  any  correspondent  change 
in  what  passes  for  religious  education?  On  the  con- 
trary, may  we  not  say  it  stands  where  it  did  fifty 
years  ago?  Anything  more  fatuous  than  the  policy 
of  the  religious  communities  on  this  matter  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  conceive.  They  have  been  con- 
tented with  their  old  standards,  their  old  methods, 
their  old  agents.  It  is  humiliating  to  think  that  the 
thing  which  the  majority  in  the  London  Scliool 
Board  so  fanatically  fights  for,  is  called  religious 
education.  The  thing  wanted  is  not  to  be  got  at 
the  ordinary  Board  school  or  from  the  average  Sun- 
day School  teacher;  the  churches  must  give  it, 
make  it  their  constant  charge,  do  it  as  their  most 
vital  work,  devote  to  it  their  finest  and  best  equipped 
spirits.  What  is  called  religious  education  is,  to 
L'peak  the  blunt  truth,  often  only  a  preparation  for 
S'iepticism.  It  is  appalling  to  think  what  would 
happen  were  the  highest  mysteries  of  the  Christian 
faith  made  into  subjects  and  standards  for  the 
ordinary  Board  school;  even  in  the  hands  of  a 
skilful  and  reverent  teacher  they  would  appear  as 
a  series  of  antinomies  that  grew  ever  more  incredible 
and  ever  less  capable  of  reconciliation.     These  are 


Injlueiice  of  tlie  Intellectual  Movement.        47 

things  that  only  the  most  highly  trained  scholarly 
and  philosophical  intellect  is  qualified  to  teach,  espe- 
cially to  boys.  We  can  already  see  how  the  method 
has  operated,  and  with  what  fatal  results,  in  a  region 
far  less  open  to  abuse  than  the  doctrinal.  Crude  views 
of  Biblical  history  crudely  presented  to  a  boy  of  four- 
teen, and  then  confusedly  remembered  by  him  when  he 
has  become  a  man,  may  be  said  to  be  the  material  for 
the  ideas  as  to  religion  and  the  Bible  which  are  dis- 
cussed and  destroyed  by  the  sulphureous  criticism  of 
the  secular  hall  and  the  free-thinking  press.  The  an- 
swer to  their  infidelity  is  not  argument  but  education, 
yet  education  of  the  church  that  gives  it,  as  well  as  of 
the  men  to  whom  it  is  given.  It  must  be  conducted 
in  the  school,  but  also  in  the  home;  must  begin 
when  the  boy  is  a  child,  and  not  cease  at  the  very 
moment  when  it  is  most  needed,  just  as  he  is 
blossoming  into  the  man,  going  out  into  the  world 
and  learning  the  gravity  of  work  and  the  impotence 
of  will.  Yet  in  order  to  this  the  Church  ought  to 
be  the  school,  for,  to  look  at  the  matter  under  only 
a  single  aspect,  the  boy's  relation  to  the  school 
ends,  and  with  it  his  education  ceases,  but  his  rela- 
tion to  the  Church  ought  to  be  continuous,  and  its 
care  for  him  a  thing  as  constant  and  progressive  as 
its  responsibility.  And  here  the  most  courageous 
is  also  the  wisest  policy;  religious  knowledge  in 
the  school  is  fixed  and  formulated,  but  in  the  Church 
is  living  and  growing,  and  so  the  two  give  things 
generically  different.  The  school  may  drill,  but  the 
Church  communicates  life.  And  simply  because  it 
deals  with  living  knowledge,  it  cannot  be  held  in 


48  Religion  in  History, 

bondage  to  standards  and  rigid  formulae.  And  here 
it  is  of  cardinal  moment  that  the  wider  thought 
should  not  be  held  back  from  the  youth  till  he 
hears  of  it  in  the  debating  club  or  hall  of  science. 
He  ought  to  be  taken  as  far  into  the  confidence 
of  the  scholar  and  the  mind  of  the  religious  thinker 
as  he  is  able  to  go;  and  as  the  mind  grows,  in. 
struction  ought  also  to  grow  with  the  mind.  And  so 
far  from  being  limited  to  the  text  and  the  catechetical 
formulae  that  are  the  hope  of  our  Philistine  School 
Board  legislators,  it  ought  to  be  made  as  many-sided 
and  comprehensive  as  religion  itself,  sympathetic  to 
poetry,  akin  to  art,  related  to  history,  bound  up  with 
philosophy,  embedded  in  science.  If  religion  could 
only  be  so  taught,  then  the  whole  education  of  our 
people  would  become  a  discipline  in  the  knowledge 
whose  end  is  piety  and  whose  inspiration  is  God. 


CHAPTER  YIII. 

THE   CONCILIATION   OF   THE   ALIENATED. 

Our  argument,  so  far  as  it  has  proceeded,  may 
be  stated  thus:  The  present  state  of  the  working 
classes  may  be  described  as  one  of  alienation  rather 
from  the  churches  than  from  religion;  but  this  aliena- 
tion has  been  due  not  to  one  but  to  many  causes, 
which,  as  springing  out  of  our  whole  modern  de- 
velopment, have  affected  equally  and  radically  both 
sides.  The  churches  have  of  late  manifested  a 
changed  feeling,  are  possessed  of  a  new  sense  of 
their  duty  to  end  the  alienation,  but  to  this  there  is 
no  reciprocal  or  correspondent  feeling  on  the  part 
of  the  working  classes.  As  the  estrangement  has 
been  gradual,  the  reconciliation  must  be  the  same, 
and  it  can  only  be  accomplished  by  the  Church 
as  a  whole  reaching,  and  either  neutralizing  or 
removing  all  the  causes  of  the  alienation.  This 
may  involve  large  modifications  in  the  polities  and 
methods,  and  an  enlargement  in  all  the  activities 
of  our  varied  religious  societies,  but  the  Church 
cannot  hope  for  exemption  from  the  inexorable  law 
that  the  organism  that  would  survive  in  the  struggle 
for  existence  must  adapt  itself  to  its  environment. 


50  Religion  in  History, 

Grant  these  positions,  and  the  problem  follows:  How 
is  the  Church  not  only  to  reach  and  remove  the  causes 
of  alienation,  but  to  reach  and  reconcile  the  alienated^ 
1.  Now,  it  is  evident,  the  Church  can  do  this  only 
as  an  essential  part  of  the  mission  with  which  it 
has  been  charged — the  saving  of  man.  Its  strength 
does  not  lie  in  policies  or  economic  stratagems,  in 
ceremonial  pomp  or  impressive  spectacles;  but  in 
the  truth  it  teaches,  the  life  it  communicates,  and 
the  character  it  forms.  It  may  constitute  a  happy 
world  out  of  good  and  happy  persons,  but  it  could 
never  create  an  ordered  society  out  of  the  most  feli- 
citous speculations,  political,  economical,  or  the- 
ological. 

'  The  first  thing,  then,  for  the  Church  to  be  is  to 
be  faithful  to  its  own  mission  and  ideal,  to  live  and 
think  and  act  as  if  it  were  indeed  the  Saviour  of  men. 
It  exists,  like  its  Founder  and  Head,  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  its  life 
a  ransom  for  the  many.  It  ought  to  know  neither 
aristocracy  nor  democracy,  but  only  man;  its  concern 
is  neither  with  capital  nor  labour,  but  with  the  men 
who  hold  the  capitalor  do  the  labour.  Its  work  is 
to  save  souls,  to  teach  truth,  to  enforce  duty  and 
discipline,  in  a  word,  so  to  cause  the  kingdom  of  God 
to  come,  that  His  will  may  be  done  on  earth  as  in 
heaven.  But  this  is  the  most  radical  work  possible; 
it  is  deeper  than  politics,  for  it  deals  with  the  men 
who  make  and  administer  and  obey  the  laws;  it  is 
more  fundamental  than  economics,  for  it  touches  the 
sources  and  ends  of  wealth,  the  men  who  create  and 
distribute,  and  who  accumulate  and  apply  it;  it  is 


The  Conciliation  of  (ihe  Alienated,  51 

more  determinative  than  society,  for  it  judges  the 
social  units,  limits  yet  guards  their  rights,  and  tries 
their  conventions.  But  the  faithfulness  must  be  to 
the  whole  mission.  It  is  not  enough  for  the  Church 
to  conceive  itself  as  an  institute  for  worship  or 
preaching  or  the  observance  of  ritual,  or  as  a  society 
adorned  by  official  dignities  and  constituted  by  the 
orders  that  govern;  it  is  necessary  that  it  be  trans- 
muted by  the  fire  of  a  great  enthusiasm  into  the  re- 
generator and  moral  guide  of  life.  It  must  conceive 
itself  as  through  and  through  ethical,  as  it  were 
the  embodied  conscience  and  law  of  God,  created 
expressly  for  the  moral  direction  and  inspiration  ot 
man.  It  ought  to  contend  for  purity  of  belief  in  order 
to  purity  of  character,  and  to  hold  sin  the  one  heresy 
that  makes  a  man  excommunicate.  It  must  not 
mistake  conformity  to  custom  for  obedience  to  moral 
law,  or  be  so  false  in  its  standards  as  to  allow  a  bad 
man  to  be  a  patron  of  its  clergy  or  of  their  livings, 
while  denying  to  a  good  man  who  serves  Christ 
in  his  own  way  the  name  of  Christian.  Nor  must 
it  wink  at  sin  in  high  places  or  in  low,  or  allow  its 
discipline  to  become  a  dead  letter.  And  discipline 
is  worse  than  a  dead  letter  when  it  is  so  misguided 
as  to  condemn  in  a  peasant  what  it  fails  to  see  in  a 
peer,  however  flagrantly  flaunted  before  its  eyes,  or 
when  it  spares  the  mystery  of  iniquity  lying  at  its 
own  door  while  angrily  reproachful  where  the  door 
chances  to  be  a  neighbour's.  Discipline  would  be  a 
tremendous  power  were  it  vigorously  and  righteously 
exercised;  where  the  law  could  not  reach  it  would 
penetrate,  the  manifest  sin  that  is  more  mischievous 


62  Religion  in  History. 

than  open  crime  it  would  punish,  and  its  penalties 
would  follow  the  immoralities  whose  guilt  is  real, 
though,  perhaps,  not  legal.  And  not  till  the 
Church  be  fearless  in  its  discipline,  will  it  seem 
honest  to  those  outside  it;  but  were  it  to  prove 
its  faith  by  enforcing  its  discipline,  it  would  reclaim 
the  masses  by  compelling  them  into  admiration  and 
belief. 

The  Church,  then,  will  be  strong  only  as  it  is  just, 
and  it  will  be  just  as  it  deals  with  men  as  men,  and 
not  simply  as  grouped  into  classes.  It  is  as  impossible 
to  draw  up  an  indictment  against  a  class  as  against 
a  whole  people,  and  where  an  indictment  cannot  be 
drawn,  a  sentence  cannot  be  passed.  But  the 
ambition  of  the  Church  will  be  to  create  men  with  a 
passion  for  righteousness,  and  to  use  all  its  forces  and 
all  its  influences  to  have  righteousness  realized  by 
every  person  in  every  class  and  in  every  region  of 
our  private  and  social,  our  industrial,  commercial,  and 
national  life.  It  ought  to  be  as  incapable  of  servitude 
to  a  majority  as  to  a  monarchy,  to  the  masses  as  to 
the  classes,  and  it  is  certain  that  subservience  is  the 
surest  way  to  forfeit  both  obedience  and  respect. 
And  only  as  it  is  above  suspicion  will  it  be  able  to 
accomplish  the  work  of  reconciliation,  and  the  more 
it  can  reconcile  to  itself  the  more  will  it  create  a 
happy  and  harmonious  people.  For  the  Church  more 
than  any  other  agency  in  our  midst  can  play  the 
part  of  mediator.  Not  by  intervening  in  strikes  and 
strifes,  but  by  bringing  about  the  understanding  that 
will  prevent  their  occurrence.  The  gospel  came  to 
make  peace  on  earth  by  creating  in  men  good-wlil, 


The  Conciliation  of  the  Alienated.  53 

and  there  is  no  cause  of  ill-will  like  the  conflict  of 
interests  conducted  in  the  darkness  of  mutual  ignor- 
ance and  distrust.  We  are  just  being  made  to  feel 
that  the  wars  of  industry  may  be  as  calamitous  as  the 
wars  of  peoples ;  indeed,  the  strike  or  the  lock-out 
is  but  civil  war  waged  under  the  forms  suitable  to 
these  days.  Now,  the  Church  should  in  the  very 
process  of  fulfilling  her  duty  do  two  things,  first, 
teach  men  of  all  classes  to  be  in  the  highest  Christian 
sense  religious  men  in  all  their  offices,  trades,  and 
relations;  and,  secondly,  bring  men  of  all  classes 
together  as  men,  make  them  to  know  each  other,  and 
look  each  at  his  own  questions  with  the  other"'\  eyes. 
Men  united  and  humbled  before  God,  and  inspired 
by  a  common  sense  of  duty,  might  disagree,  but  the 
more  they  understood  the  more  would  they  respect 
each  other,  and  would  the  more  reluctantly  differ. 
The  workman  needs  to  know  the  master  that  he  may 
comprehend  his  case  ;  the  master  needs  to  know  the 
workman  that  he  may  understand  where  the  shoe 
pinches,  and  how  it  can  be  made  to  fit  the  foot.  If 
they  could  so  meet  together  that  the  master  would 
have  to  cease  to  think  of  the  workman  as  a  servant, 
or  as  a  being  of  inferior  nature  with  inferior  rights 
to  his  own,  and  the  workman  would  learn  to  think 
of  the  master  as  a  man  beset  on  all  sides  with  responsi- 
bilities and  the  servant,  or  even  victim,  of  forces 
he  deeply  dislikes,  they  would  soon  discover  through 
their  common  natures  the  community  of  their  inter- 
ests and  the  duty,  which  they  must  somehow  find  a 
way  to  fulfil,  of  living  together  in  peace.  And  the 
only  agency  by  which  they  can  be  thus  united  and 


54  Religion  in  History. 

made  mutually  intelligible  is  a  church  which  knows 
them  as  men,  but  refuses  to  know  them  as  interests 
or  as  classes. 

2.  But  over  and  above  this  general  principle  of 
fidelity  to  its  own  idea  or  mission,  the  Church  must 
follow  special  lines  or  methods  of  action,  and  these 
ought  to  be  as  varied  as  the  needs  and  minds  of  the 
people  it  would  reclaim. 

(1)  The  Church  must  appeal  to  the  alienated 
mind,  seek  to  persuade  it  by  reason  and  argument. 
It  must  become  in  a  larger  degree  the  instructor  of 
the  people.  In  order  to  this  it  must  think  more 
and  better  of  its  own  mission,  of  the  truth  it  carries 
that  it  may  interpret  and  realize.  Here  almost  every- 
thing has  to  be  done ;  we  need  to  escape  from  the 
bondage  of  the  letter  into  the  freedom  of  the  spirit. 
The  Church  must  be  a  learner  before  it  can  be  a 
teacher,  and  it  will  find,  when  it  speaks  out  of  its 
own  honest  and  living  convictions,  that  none  will  hear 
more  gladly  than  our  workmen.  Any  man  who  has 
preached  knows  what  a  keen  and  appreciative  audi- 
ence they  can  form,  more  greedy  of  instruction  than 
any  upper  or  higher  middle  class  congregation.  It  is 
in  these  latter  that  the  impatience  of  the  sermon  has 
become  decisive  and  uncontrolled,  and  this  impatience 
largely  means  that  instruction  is  not  wanted  because 
religion  is  conceived  as  a  form  or  a  service,  not  as  duty 
and  truth.  Yet  this  cause  does  not  stand  alone. 
Nothing  falls  into  contempt  quite  undeserved.  Ser- 
mons worthy  of  respect  will  continue  to  be  respected 
even  by  those  who  now  conceive  them  as  having  no 
place  in  the  worship  of  God.    But  the  very  desire  for 


Tfie  Conciliation  of  the  Alienated.  55 

knowledge  and  direction  makes  the  want  or  the  in- 
efficiency of  the  sermon  a  thing  intolerable  to  the 
thoughtful  working  man.  To  meet  his  needs  it  must 
change  its  character  and  enlarge  its  range,  must  not 
fear  to  deal  with  the  central  questions  of  religion,  to 
re-state  and  re-discuss  the  highest  mysteries  of  Chris- 
tianity, to  handle  the  criticism  and  theology  of  the 
Scriptures,  to  reason  concerning  Christian  ethics,  and 
apply  them  to  all  the  problems  and  occasions  of  life. 
There  is  nothing  the  pulpit  so  much  needs  as  courage, 
both  in  its  mode  of  handling  things  and  in  its  choice 
of  the  things  it  handles;  there  ought  to  be  nothing  too 
high  or  too  abstruse,  too  critical  or  too  philosophical 
for  it,  any  more  than  too  plain  or  too  practical.  It 
may  be  that  want  of  courage  is  only  another  term  for 
want  of  capacity;  but  whichever  name  be  applied 
to  the  defect,  it  is  one  that  every  energy  should  be 
strained  to  repair  and  remove.  The  potentialities 
of  the  pulpit  are  incalculable;  hardly  any  limit  could 
be  set  to  what  it  might  accomplish.  The  whole 
realm  of  thought  and  feeling,  truth  and  duty,  history 
and  life,  art  and  literature,  knowledge  and  action  lies 
before  it;  crowds  of  anxious,  expectant,  perplexed, 
thoughtful  men  and  women  wait  for  its  words.  The 
mysteries  that  most  appeal  to  the  imagination,  the 
history  that  most  moves  the  heart,  the  hopes  that 
most  uplift,  the  fears  that  most  abase,  the  motives 
that  persuade  the  will,  and  the  ideals  that  control  the 
conscience  are  at  its  command,  ready  to  be  used  as 
means  to  its  ends  and  instruments  of  its  power. 
What  it  needs  is  men;  if  the  Church  could  find  men 
equal  to  its  opportunity  it  would  possess  and  govern 


66  Religion  in  History, 

the  mind  of  England,  possibly  most  of  all  the  minds 
of  its  working  men. 

(2)  Ihe  alienated  life  must  be  touched  and 
changed.  Carlyle  long  ago  preached  this  gospel: 
*'Soul  isl  indled  only  by  soul.  To  Heach'  religion, 
the  first  thing  needful,  and  also  the  last  and  the 
only  thing,  is  the  finding  of  a  man  who  has  religion. " 
And  what  is  the  Church  but  a  nursery  for  the  making 
of  such  men?  But  once  they  are  made  they  must 
be  distributed,  the  living  soul  must  come  face  to  face 
with  the  soul  it  has  to  quicken.  And  here  much  may 
be  expected  from  colonies  of  the  brave  and  good 
in  our  East  Ends,  and  in  all  the  districts,  urban, 
suburban,  and  rural,  where  our  workers  congregate ; 
but  hitherto  these  have  been  composed  mainly  of 
young  men,  and  we  must,  by  ceaseless  help  and  re- 
plenishment, take  care  that  their  surroundings  do  not 
prove  stronger  than  they.  There  is  no  civilizing  or 
Christianizing  power  like  that  of  a  good  person,  and 
the  good  person  is  most  needed  where  the  good  are 
few.  A  thoughtful  and  observant  medical  officer  once 
said  to  me,  ^ '  A  single  cleanly  family  raises  the  stand- 
ard of  cleanliness  in  a  whole  tenement,  and  I  have 
seen  the  removal  of  one  attended  by  deterioration  all 
round."  And  what  is  true  of  outward  is  true  of  in- 
ward cleanliness.  The  presence  of  the  morally  healthy 
acts  as  a  kind  of  moral  deodorizer,  and  his  absence 
is  the  despair  of  the  worker  in  the  slums.  If,  then, 
the  moral  and  religious  colony  is  to  accomplish  any- 
thing, it  must  be  carried  out  on  a  vaster  scale  than 
has  yet  been  dreamed  of  The  churches  must  not 
fear  to  give  of  their  noblest  and  their  best,  who  cer- 


The  Conciliation  of  the  Alienated.  57 

tainly  will  not  themselves  refuse  to  be  given,  to  the 
service  of  the  brothers  who  live  by  labour. 

(3)  But  the  place  that  most  needs  our  care  is 
the  home  where  the  alienated  life  is  nursed  and 
formed.  We  speak  of  the  working  man,  and  we  forget 
his  wife;  but  his  wife  is  a  more  potent  factor  in  his 
improvement  or  deterioration  than  he  is  himself.  She 
suffers  more  in  the  struggle  for  life  than  he  does, 
has  fewer  elements  of  change  and  brightness  in  her 
life,  and  readily  falls  into  a  hopeless  drudge,  unable 
to  cheer,  because  incapable  of  cheerfulness.  Yet 
she  is  more  susceptible  of  cheer  from  her  sister 
woman  than  her  husband  from  his  brother  man. 
Here  is  a  field  where  splendid  work  may  be  done. 
The  poor  have  had  more  than  enough  of  parochial 
charities,  and  congregational  visitors,  and  ofl&cious 
distributors  of  tracts  which  are  seldom  read.  What 
they  need  is  an  army  of  good  motherly  or  sisterly 
women,  who  will  never  be  prying  or  condescending, 
but  only  patient  and  neighbourly,  and  who  will  stay 
in  and  cook  the  husband's  dinner,  or  tend  a  fractious 
child,  or  even  tidy  up  the  room  while  the  mother 
escapes  from  the  hated  four  walls  to  breathe  a  fresher 
air  and  see  a  larger  world.  If  we  could  only  create 
the  happier  and  more  wholesome  home,  the  battle 
were  as  good  as  won. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

URGENCY   OP   THE   NEED. 

1.  What  we  have  called  the  reconciliation  of 
the  working  classes  is  a  matter  of  vital  necessity 
both  to  themselves,  the  State,  and  the  Churches. 
We  live  in  the  generation  that  has  witnessed  the 
transit  of  power,  and  this  means  that  for  the  battle 
to  maintain  our  place  and  fulfil  our  function  in  the 
history  of  humanity  we  have  called  out  our  last 
reserves.  The  evils  of  no  past  sovereignty  were 
irremediable,  for  behind  the  reigning  house  or  class 
we  had  reserves  vaster  than  the  army  in  the  field. 
When  the  king  was  supreme,  we  had  an  aristocracy 
often  able,  and  always  willing,  to  correct  his  blunders 
and  save  us  from  the  results.  When  the  aristocracy 
governed,  we  had  the  middle  class,  watchful,  ex- 
pectant, capable,  eager  to  embody  in  legislation 
their  larger  and  more  noble  conception  of  the  State. 
When  the  middle  class  had  exhausted  their  energies 
and  realized  their  ideals,  we  had  the  people  waiting 
the  opportunity  for  the  exercise  of  their  still  untried 
strength.  And  now  their  opportunity  is  come,  our 
last  reserves  are  summoned  to  the  front,  and  on 
their  skill  and  endurance  the  issue  of  the  battle  will 


Urgency  of  the  Need.  59 

depend.  The  moment  is  critical,  for,  as  all  history 
testifies,  it  is  more  easy  to  gain  power  than  to  exer- 
cise it  wisely;  and  our  modern  democracies  are,  for 
reasons  partially  stated  in  Lecture  IV.,  the  very 
converse  of  the  ancient.  The  ancient  democracies 
were  all  in  a  sense  aristocracies,  i.e.  they  repre- 
sented the  reign  of  a  dominant  order  or  race.  The 
demos  might  be  coextensive  with  the  citizens,  but 
the  citizens  were  not  coextensive  with  the  popula- 
tion, citizenship  being  rigorously  limited  to  men  of 
a  given  birth  and  blood.  Then,  too,  the  old  democ- 
racies were  municipalities  rather  than  nationalities, 
their  area  was  so  limited,  their  politics  so  simple, 
their  opportunities  for  discussion  so  multitudinous, 
their  legislative  machinery  so  potent  and  direct, 
that  it  was  not  dififtcult  for  the  citizen  to  master  the 
mysteries  and  the  method  of  state-craft.  He  was 
trained  in  the  discussion  of  political  ideas  from  his 
boyhood;  the  city  which  was  his  state  lived  before 
his  eyes,  its  statesmen  passed  him  daily  on  the  street; 
his  public  life  was  but  private  life  enlarged,  and  as 
he  knew  himself  only  through  his  family,  so  he  con- 
ceived his  family  as  only  through  and  for  the  State. 
But  our  modern  democracies  are  an  almost  complete 
contrast  to  this,  especially  in  those  things  that  con- 
cern the  exercise  of  sovereign  power.  The  causes, 
represented  by  the  growth  and  reign  of  Christian 
ideas,  which  abolished  slavery  and  serfdom,  have 
made  the  modern  demos  coextensive  with  the  man- 
hood of  the  State.  While  the  State  is  not  a  city  or 
a  confederacy  of  cities,  but  a  series  of  nationalities, 
the  people,  into  whose  hands  power  has  passed,  are 


60  Religion  in  History, 

not  a  select  and  homogeneous  race,  or  the  citizens 
of  a  small  city  welded  together  by  pride  of  blood, 
local  ambitions  and  jealousies,  and  the  need  of  hold- 
ing down  a  multitude  of  helots  whose  labour  is 
necessary  to  their  very  being;  but  they  are  a  mixed 
and  heterogeneous  multitude,  as  it  were  the  helots 
rather  than  the  citizens,  not  gathered  into  a  single 
centre,  but  distributed  through  many  provinces, 
each  with  a  centre  of  its  own,  often  more  conscious 
of  the  many  conflicting  interests  which  divide  them 
than  of  the  few  great  common  interests  which 
unite. 

Now,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  anything  more 
critical  than  the  recognized  and  conscious   sover- 
eignty of  a  people  so  constituted  and  so  placed,  one 
more  capable  of  infinite  good  or  incalculable  ill. 
And  the  earliest  moments  in  the  use  of  power  must 
always  be  the  most  critical,  for  they  are  the  formative 
moments.     In  the  modern  as  in  the  ancient  world 
there  will  be  opportunity  enough  for  a  Cleon  to  attempt 
to  lead  by  flattering  the  vanity  or  the  foibles  or  the 
greed  of  the  many;  or  for  an  Aristophanes  to  at- 
tempt by  savage  satire  of  Cleon  or  brutal  caricature 
of  Socrates  to  befool  the  many  and  secure  power  to 
the  few.     But,  happily,  there  is  always  a  limit  to 
the  influence  of  the  demagogue.  "^ ^aether  he  be  an 
avowed  man  of  the  people  or  a   oisguised  oligarch, 
and  the  limit   is   soon   reached   and    rarely  tran. 
scendcd.     The  more  real  danger  lies  in  the  tenden- 
cies common  to  human  nature,  especially  the  ten- 
dency to  use  power  to  gratify  narrow  interests,  or 
sectional  passions,  or  immediate  and  selfish  needs. 


Urgency  of  the  Need.  61 

Those  tendencies  have  governed  much  of  the  legis- 
lation of  the  past,  but  their  action  was  less  injurious 
when  they  operated  through  a  single  class  or 
through  several  but  mutually  qualifying  classes  than 
they  would  be  if  they  worked  in  and  through  the 
collective  people.  We  are  face  to  face,  then,  with 
what  we  may  truly  call  the  supreme  moment  of  our 
history.  It  is  the  people  that  now  rule,  and  unless 
God  live  in  and  rule  through  the  people,  the  end  of 
all  our  struggles,  the  goal  of  all  our  boasted  pro- 
gress, will  be  chaos, — and  chaos  is  death. 

2.  The  sovereign  people,  then,  ought  not  to  be 
sovereignless;  but  their  only  possible  sovereign  is 
the  God  who  is  Lord  of  the  conscience.  His  is  the 
only  voice  that  can  still  the  noise  of  the  passions  and 
the  tumult  of  the  interests.  This  does  not  mean  that 
His  sovereignty  is  needed  to  be,  as  it  were,  a  bit  and 
bridle  by  which  they  can  be  ridden  or  driven  with 
greater  ease;  nor  does  it  mean  that  its  real  or  ex- 
clusive organ  is  a  hierarchy  or  an  organized  clergy 
or  official  priesthood;  but  it  does  mean  that  the  be- 
lief in  an  Infinite  Majesty  who  reigns  over  all  peo- 
ples and  all  persons,  and  to  whom  all  are,  now  and 
eternally,  responsible,  needs  to  be  worked  into  the 
very  substance  of  the  commonwealth  and  made,  as 
it  were,  its  common  soul.  And  this  work  lies  upon 
the  Church  as  an  imperative  duty. 

Without  the  '^ common  people"  who  heard  its 
Founder  and  Head  gladly,  it  is  depotentiated  and 
impoverished.  Its  wealth  lies  in  the  souls  it  loves 
and  teaches  to  love.  Its  function  is  to  enrich  their 
time  with  the  ideals  of  eternity.     And  churches 


62  Religion  in  History. 

composed  exclusively  of  rich  or  poor  mean  the  reign 
of  the  conditions  and  categories  of  time  within  the 
realm  of  the  Eternal.  A  labour  church  is  a  creation 
more  of  despair  than  of  hope,  an  attempt,  as  it  were, 
to  sanctify  an  evil  rather  than  to  cure  it.  The 
terms  ^'Master"  and  ^'Servant,"  ''Capital"  and 
''Labour"  denote  relations  the  Church  ought  not  to 
know,  and  may  not  recognize,  and  to  embody  such 
distinctions  in  her  very  name  is  but  to  run  up  the 
flag  of  surrender.  She  carries  for  all  mankind  the 
noblest  inheritance  of  our  race,  the  wealth  of  divine 
love  and  grace,  of  human  faith  and  hope  and  devo- 
tion, of  saintly  memory  and  heroic  achievement, 
and  only  as  she  makes  the  inheritance  she  carries 
the  possession  of  the  common  people,  does  she  fulfil 
the  end  for  which  she  was  created. 


RELIGION  IN  HISTORY 


"  We  treat  God  with  irremrmce  by  banishing  Mm  from  our 
thoughts,  not  by  referring  to  His  will  on  slight  occasions.  His 
is  not  the  finite  authority  or  intelligence  which  cannot  he  trou- 
bled with  small  things.  There  is  nothing  so  small  hut  that  we 
may  honour  God  by  asking  His  guidance  of  it,  or  insult  Him 
by  taking  it  into  our  own  hands;  and  what  is  true  of  the 
Deity  is  equally  true  of  His  Revelation.  We  use  it  most  rever- 
ently when  most  habitually;  our  insolence  is  in  ever  acting 
without  reference  to  it,  our  true  honouring  of  it  is  in  its  uni- 
versal application,'' — Ruskin,  "Seven  Lamps  of  Architecture," 
Introduction. 

"  To  those  who  act  on  what  they  knowy  more  shall  be  re- 
vealed; and  thus,  if  any  man  will  do  His  willy  he  shall  know 
the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God.  Any  man,  not  the  man 
who  has  most  means  of  knoioing,  who  has  the  subtlest  brains, 
or  sits  under  the  most  orthodox  preacher,  or  has  his  library 
fullest  of  most  orthodox  hooks, — hut  the  man  who  strives  to 
know,  who  takes  God  at  His  word,  and  sets  himself  to  dig  up 
the  heavenly  rnystery,  roots  and  all,  before  sunset,  and  the 
night  come,  when  no  m,an  can  work.  Beside  such  a  man, 
God  stands  in  more  and  more  visible  presence  as  he  toils,  and 
teaches  him  that  which  no  preacher  can  teach — no  earthly 
authority  gainsay.  By  such  a  man  the  preacher  must  himself 
be  judged. — Ruskin,  "Notes  on  the  Construction  of  Sheepfolds," 
"  On  the  Old  Road,"  ii.  §§  201,  202. 

"  We  do  not  at  all  know  everything  which  we  have  Luther 
and  the  Reformation  in  general  to  thank  for.  We  have  become 
free  from  the  fetters  of  spiritual  narrowness,  we  have,  because 
of  our  progressive  culture,  become  capable  of  returning  to  the 
source  and  apprehending  Christianity  in  its  purity.  We  have 
regained  the  courage  to  stand  with  firm  feet  on  God's  own 
earth,  and  to  feel  within  us  our  human  nature  God-endowed. 
Let  S2nritual  culture  continue  ever  to  advance,  let  the  natural 
scietices  grow  ever  broader  and  deeper,  and  the  human  spirit 
enlarge  itself  as  it  will, — yet  beyond  the  majesty  and  moral 
culture,  which  shines  and  lightens  in  the  Gospels,  it  will  not 
advance."— QqqVuq,  <«  Eckermann's  Gesprache,"  Dritter  Th., 
pp.  372-373. 


LECTURE  I. 

WHAT   IS    RELIGION  ? 

Clear  ideas  are  always  necessary  to  intelligent 
discussion;  but  clear  ideas  are  very  hard  to  get, 
especially  about  the  most  familiar  things.  As  a  rule, 
what  everybody  is  thought  to  know,  nobody  is  found 
to  understand.  Now  religion  is  one  of  the  most 
familiar  of  things.  We  think,  or  hear,  or  speak,  or 
read  about  it  every  day.  Many  are  instructed  in  it 
every  week  of  their  lives.  Yet  were  the  question, 
What  is  religion?  suddenly  submitted  to  every  man 
here,  can  you  conceive  what  precisely  would  be  the 
character  of  the  answers?  It  is  hardly  too  much  to 
say  that  the  variety,  the  contradictions,  the  confusion, 
the  bewilderment,  would  be  something  wonderful, 
and  most  wonderful  in  the  case  of  the  men  who 
thought  that  they  understood  the  matter  best  and 
were  quite  prepared  to  put  the  perverted  intelligence 
of  the  world  right.  To  go  to  church,  to  go  to  chapel, 
to  do  Sunday  School  work,  to  read  the  Bible,  to  hold 
the  faith  of  a  given  church,  to  observe  its  customs,  to 
confess  to  the  priest,  to  respect  the  parson,  to  agree 
with  the  minister,  to  believe  in  another  world  which 
has  no  concern  with  this,  to  be  good,  to  do  good,  to 


66  Religion  in  History. 

love  the  society  of  good  people — these,  and  such-like, 
might  probably  be  found  among  the  definitions. 

Now  whether  these  do,  or  do  not,  fairly  represent 
current  ideas,  one  thing,  and  one  thing  only,  is  meant 
to  be  here  perceived,  this,  viz. ,  that  if  we  start  with 
different  ideas  as  to  what  the  term  religion  means, 
we  shall  never  understand  each  other's  meaning  or 
mind,  never  at  any  point  of  the  reasoning  become 
intelligible  to  each  other,  and  so  shall  never  by  any 
possibility  be  able  to  reach  a  common  agreement. 
Men  may  use  the  same  word  to  express  not  only  un- 
like, but  opposite  ideas,  and  if  language  be  so  em- 
ployed it  becomes  a  vehicle  or  means  of  hiding,  not 
of  communicating  thought.  Speech  so  used  can 
only  confuse  and  bewilder  the  judgment.  Hence  it 
is  necessary  at  the  outset  of  the  discussion  that 
we  clearly  and  distinctly  understand  what  the  term 
'^Religion"  means.  If  we  can  do  this,  much  is 
gained.  You  may  not  agree  with  my  meaning  or 
my  mind,  but  at  least  you  will  be  in  a  position  to 
understand  my  arguments  and  judge  the  cogency  or 
otherwise  of  any  train  and  process  of  reasoning.  In 
the  world  of  thought,  mischief  is  caused  more  by 
confusion  than  by  any  other  cause.  Not  otherwise 
than  by  clear  thinking  can  man  reason  to  any  pur- 
pose or  reach  any  clear  and  sound  conclusion. 

Now  I  must  begin  by  frankly  bespeaking  your 
patience.  It  is  a  hard  matter  to  make  intelligible 
abstract  and  abstruse  things.  You  are  many  of 
you  men  accustomed  to  manual  toil;  I  am  a  man 
accustomed  to  mental  toil.  I  should  be  very  much 
astonished  and  bewildered  at  the  simplest  processes 


What  is  Religion  ?  67 

of  your  daily  work.  You  would  have  need  to  be 
patient  in  explaining  the  matter  to  me;  and  I  often 
might  be  so  stupid  as  not  to  understand  the  veriest 
rudiments  of  your  craft.  And  so  you  may  not  at 
once  see  the  issues  and  modes  of  a  mental  craft,  that 
has  occupied  a  man  for  many  years  more  hours  a  day 
than  any  trades-union  would  allow  him  to  work — has 
kept  him  hard  at  it  in  the  early  morning,  at  noon, 
and  at  night,  until  his  subject  may  have  become  so 
much  a  matter  of  daily  expression  and  association  to 
him  that  he  is  unable  really  to  estimate  the  diflBculty 
of  comprehension  on  the  part  of  others  not  accus- 
tomed to  the  same  methods  and  the  same  tfiemes. 
Pardon  me,  then,  if,  to-night  in  particular,  I  occa- 
sionally become  somewhat  abstruse,  and  not  as  lucid 
as  you  would  like  me  to  be;  but  as  we  are  concerned 
this  night  with  the  principles  that  underlie  our 
whole  argument,  I  must  ask  you  to  labour  strenu- 
ously to  comprehend  these,  that  the  later  and  more 
familiar  discussions  may  have  their  proper  place  and 
force. 


Our  question  then  is,  ''What  is  religion?"  Now 
it  is  best  to  begin  by  clearing  our  minds.  You  know 
Dr.  Johnson's  advice,  "Clear  your  mind  of  cant." 
Now  the  cant  it  is  needful  to  clear  our  minds  of  is 
the  confused  thought  that  may  stand  in  the  way  of 
clear  comprehension.  To  this  end  let  us  at  once 
note  this — the  relation  of  the  churches  to  religion, 
of  religion  to  the  churches.  Now,  many  people, 
perhaps  most  people,  look  at  religion  through  the 


68  Religion  in  History. 

churches,  and  cannot  understand  it  apart  from  them. 
To  many,  church  is  religion,  and  religion  is  church. 
Religion  is  the  Church's  concern.  What  it  does  is 
the  religious.  What  it  does  not  do  is  secular,  or 
profane,  or  outside  religion.  What  it  condemns  is 
irreligious.  Well,  many,  so  thinking,  set  down  all 
the  good  religion  has  done  to  the  churches;  while 
others,  so  thinking,  set  down  all  the  evil  the  churches 
have  done  to  religion.  Books  have  been  written, 
speeches  are  daily  made,  to  show  how  mischievous 
the  action  of  the  churches  has  been;  and,  therefore, 
how  mischievous  the  action  of  religion.  The  churches 
have  often  been  on  the  side  of  the  rich  and  against 
the  poor;  the  churches  have  often  been  on  the  side 
of  tyranny  and  against  freedom;  the  churches  have 
often  repressed  liberty  of  thought,  and  hindered 
free  discussion;  the  churches  have  often  produced 
churchmen  who  have  been  fond  of  place,  fond  of 
power,  fond  of  wealth.  And  all  these  things  have 
been  set  down  to  the  discredit  of  religion — the  sins 
of  the  churches  been  made  its  sins,  the  evil  of  the 
churches  its  evil.  Now,  I  mean  to  reverse  that 
process,  and  look  at  the  churches  through  religion, 
not  at  religion  through  the  churches.  They  exist 
for  it;  it  does  not  exist  for  them;  they  are  to  be 
judged  as  they  are  faithful  to  it ;  it  is  not  to  be  con- 
demned because  they  are  unfaithful  to  their  own 
great  purpose  and  own  great  mission.  Often  the 
hardest  obstacle  to  the  realization  of  religion  has 
been  a  church.  An  unfaithful  servant  may  ruin  a 
master;  a  church  unfaithful  may  discredit  religion. 
The  great  point,  therefore,  is  to  find  what  relation 


What  is  Religion  ?  69 

exists  between  these,  that  the  one  may  be  rightly 
conceived  in  its  ideal  perfection,  and  the  other  rightly 
judged  in  its  historical  sin  or  imperfection. 

Let  me  illustrate  what  I  mean.  In  Europe  you 
have  various  types  of  polities.  There  is  the  impe- 
rial, absolute  as  in  Russia;  modified  as  in  Austria, 
elective  as  in  Germany.  Then  you  have  the  monar- 
chical running  through  various  degrees;  personal  as 
in  Prussia,  constitutional  as  in  Italy,  and  constitu- 
tional and  limited — very  limited  indeed — as  in  Eng- 
land. Then  you  have  the  republican,  young  as  in 
France,  centuries  old  as  in  Switzerland.  Now  do 
you  identify  these  polities  with  the  peoples  that 
dwell  under  them?  or  do  you  distinguish  the  two, 
studying  the  polities  and  judging  them  in  relation  to 
the  peoples?  The  polities  that  do  most  to  maintain 
law  and  order  and  to  distribute  impartial  justice, 
that  really  represent  the  people,  that  help  the  just 
distribution  of  capital  and  wealth,  that  do  most  to 
promote  the  happiness,  the  progress,  the  freedom, 
of  their  peoples,  are  judged  by  you  to  be  good;  but 
the  polities  that  fail  to  secure  these  things  are  judged 
by  you  to  be  bad,  and  bad  in  proportion  to  their 
failure.  You  do  not  judge  the  people  through  the 
polity;  but  you  judge  the  polity  through  the  people. 
If  the  polity  be  bad  you  do  not  pronounce  condem- 
nation on  the  people,  but  you  pity  them;  you  are 
gentle  to  them  in  proportion  as  the  system  from 
which  they  suffer  is  severe.  Now  as  polities  stand 
related  to  peoples,  churches  stand  related  to  reli- 
gion. The  best  polity  is  the  polity  that  best  secures 
highest  material  and  social  welfare;  the  best  church 


70  Religion  in  History. 

is  the  church  that  secures  most  perfect  realization 
for  the  ideal  and  spiritual — that  is,  the  eternal,  con- 
tents of  religion.     That  polity  which  fails  to  do  jus- 
tice to  the  ideal  of  man  is  bad.     That  church  which 
fails  to  do  justice  to  the  ideal  of  religion  is  not  good. 
But  you  will  perceive  that  we  have  fixed  an  im- 
portant principle.     Religion  is  not  to  be  looked  at 
or  judged  simply  from  the  churches.     The  churches 
are  to  be  judged  by  religion.  Again  I  say,  they  exist 
for  it;  it  does  not  exist  for  them.     They  are  good  as 
they  realize  it;  bad  as  they  fail  in  realization.     But 
that  involves   two   points;    first   the   utter   futility 
and  folly  of  condemning  religion  through  and  be- 
cause of  the  churches;  the  utter  injustice  of  identify- 
ing it  with  their  imperfections   and  evils,  or  even 
holding  it  responsible  for  them.  If  a  polity  wrongs  a 
people,  depraves  and  hurts  it,  you  don't  declare  that 
all  government  ought  to  cease;  nay,  you  say.  Let  a 
government  be  created  that  shall  do  justice  to  the 
people,  and  help  it  to  realize  all  the  best  possibilities 
within  it,  the  whole  ideal  of  society  and  of  man  it 
may   contain.      So,    if   you   find    imperfections    in 
churches,  do  not  use  them  as  occasions  to  condemn 
religion;  use  religion  as  a  law  or  standard  to  condemn 
these  imperfections,  and  insist  that  perfect  churches 
alone  can  do  justice  to  perfect  religion.      Then  here 
is  the  next  and  second  point:  you  must  have  a  posi- 
tive idea  of  religion  before  you  can  have  a  standard 
by  which  to  judge  the  churches.      The  standard  by 
which  you  judge  a  polity  is  the  supreme  good  of  the 
people.      It  depends  upon  your  idea  of  the  people's 
good  how  you  judge  the  polity.     But  it  is  only  a 


What  is  Religion?  71 

very  recently  recognized  principle,  this  of  the  happi- 
ness of  the  people  as  supreme  good.  Old  maxims 
were  maxims  like  these:  whose  the  region,  his  the 
religion;  the  divine  right  of  the  king  to  rule,  the 
divine  duty  of  the  people  to  obey,  so  making  people 
exist  for  king,  not  king  for  people.  We  now  under- 
stand, thanks  to  agencies  which  will  be  discussed 
later,  that  the  grand  purpose  of  all  government  is  to 
promote  the  highest  weal  of  the  people;  that  being 
reached,  we  can  easily  by  due  discussion  determine 
the  best  form  of  polity  and  institution.  So  when  we 
have  got  at  the  idea  of  religion  we  shall  be  able  to 
determine  in  what  way,  by  what  methods,  according 
to  what  polity,  along  what  lines,  churches  must  serve 
religion  in  order  that  they  may  serve  the  cause  of 
God  and  of  man. 

II. 

We  have  got  then  the  length  of  seeing  this  point: 
that  the  churches  exist  for  religion,  and  are  to  be 
judged  purely  by  their  capability  or  power  of  realiz- 
ing it.  It  is  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  their 
imperfections;  nay,  these  are  to  be  judged  by  its 
perfection.  But  that  only,  as  we  see,  throws  us  back 
upon  the  question  with  which  we  started — What  is 
religion?  But  now,  if  we  are  to  answer  that,  we 
must  do  so  not  only  in  a  clear  way,  but  in  a  large 
way;  for  mark! — man  is  a  religious  being.  Look 
to  the  north  and  south,  the  east  and  west,  and  what 
do  you  see?  religions.  Wherever  you  turn — man; 
wherever  man — religion.  ' '  No,  "  says  some  very  wise 
person,  ''  not  at  all;   there  are  low  tribes,  far  down 


12  "Religion  in  History. 

in  the  scale,  found  without  any  religious  customs, 
without  any  religious  ideas;  religion  is  not  uni- 
versal. "  Well,  I  will  not  discuss  the  matter,  but  will 
only  say  this:  the  greatest  ethnographers, — that  is, 
the  men  who  have  most  extensively  studied  the 
customs,  the  manners,  the  beliefs  of  men, — are  on  my 
side  in  affirming  the  opposite.  But  I  do  not  stand 
on  that.  If  you  insist  on  it,  let  us  grant  that  there 
are  low  tribes  without  religion.  What  then?  Why 
this:  to  be  without  it  is  to  be  fallen  into  utter 
savagery;  to  be  without  it  is  to  have  the  sure  and 
indelible  mark  of  lost  manhood  and  utter  barbarism. 
A  great  and  distinguished  thinker,  Schelling,  wrote 
a  great  book,  which  started  from  this  principle: — 
Man  in  the  very  act  of  founding  society  realizes 
religion;  without  religion  there  is  no  society;  at  its 
root,  in  all  its  customs,  throughout  all  its  laws, 
religion  runs;  and  society  is  only  where  religion  has 
begun  to  be.  And  that  is  a  simple,  certain  fact.  No 
man  who  knows  ethnography,  sociology,  or  whatever 
he  may  call  the  science  which  deals  with  the  origins 
of  institutions  and  civilization,  will  question  it  for  a 
moment.  Society  and  religion,  as  it  were,  begin  to 
be  together.  Man  cannot  become  a  social,  and 
therefore  a  civilized,  being  untilhe  has  a  religion. 

But  now  that  has  brought  us  to  this  point — that 
religion,  since  as  old  and  as  universal  as  man,  is 
natural  to  him.  It  does  not  need  a  miracle  to  create 
it;  rather  this  may  be  said:  its  cessation  would  re- 
quire a  miracle,  would  need  the  de-rationalizing,  or, 
if  you  like,  the  de-naturalizing,  of  man.  That  might, 
along  a  great  variety  of  lines,  be  proved  io  you.     It 


What  is  Religion  ?  73 

would  not  be  so  very  difficult  of  proof  either  were 
time  only  granted;  but  this  meanwhile  may  be  said: 
So  consonant  are  religious  ideas  with  man's  nature 
that  that  nature  has  always  been  at  its  best,  whether 
in  the  individual  or  in  the  nation,  when  the  religious 
idea  was  purest  and  when  the  religious  idea  was 
strongest.  That  is  a  matter  capable  of  historical 
proof,  absolutely  incapable  of  historical  disproof. 
Peoples  that  have  been  great  in  art  have  been  great, 
for  what  reasons?  To  the  Greeks,  the  masters  in 
this  region  of  all  time,  art  was  religious — the 
temple,  the  sculpture  that  glorified  the  god,  de- 
clared the  excellency  of  religion.  Peoples,  too, 
that  have  been  great  in  literature  have  been  great 
through  their  religious  ideas.  Look  at  the  Jews. 
They  were  at  the  largest  when  at  home  a  small 
people — a  very  little  handful;  they  were  rude,  they 
were  unlettered  in  a  sense,  yet  they  created  what, 
from  the  literary  point  of  view,  must  be  called  the 
most  extraordinary  literature  in  the  world.  There 
is  in  India  a  wonderful  literature,  vast,  immense; 
it  begins  with  the  hymns  of  the  Rig  Yeda,  about, 
fourteen  hundred  years  before  Christ,  and  comes 
down  through  the  great  Epics  and  Law  Books  and 
Philosophers  to  the  Puranas,  works  almost  of  oui 
own  day.  And  what  marks  it?  Religious  ideas, 
and  here  as  elsewhere,  the  purer  and  sublimer  the 
religious  idea,  the  finer  and  nobler  the  literatures 
only  when  it  is  lost  in  mythical  and  idolatrous 
extravagance  does  the  literature  become  foolish  and 
depraved.  The  Chinese  have  a  great  literature. 
What  marks  it?     It  is  the  exposition  of  the  religion 


74  Beligion  in  History. 

and  the  rule  by  which  they  seek  to  live.  The  Greeks, 
too,  at  their  highest,  noblest  moment:  what  sort  of  a 
literature  did  they  make? — what  marks  it? — religious 
ideas,  and  those  very  ideas  were  the  breath  of  life  to 
the  men  who  vanquished  Persia  and  made  the  drama 
and  the  philosophy  of  Greece.  But  it  is  not  matter 
of  art  and  of  literature  only.  Take  politics,  the 
collective  life,  the  freedom,  the  ideals  which  have 
been  realized  in  all  the  higher  and  nobler  forms  of 
collective  and  social  being,  whence  have  they  come? 
From  religion;  wherever  there  has  been  highest 
order,  wherever  there  has  been  noblest  freedom,  wher- 
ever there  has  been  a  patriotism  that  did  not  fear  to 
die  and  did  not  care  to  live,  save  in  so  far  as  it  lived 
for  fatherland  and  faith,  there  has  also  been  as  the 
factor  and  inspiration  of  all  the  rest,  the  reign  of 
great  religious  ideas.  It  is  a  universal  law.  Man 
at  his  best,  man  at  his  noblest,  has  been  so  through 
the  action  and  by  the  help  of  religious  ideas. 

We  see,  then,  that  religion  is  something  natural; 
that  religious  ideas  are  inseparable  from  our  kind, 
that  human  nature  is  at  its  best  when  most  religious. 
Now  what  does  a  wise  man  do  when  he  stands  face 
to  face  with  facts  of  this  sort?  Does  he  begin  a 
polemic  against  the  absurdity  of  all  religious  ideas 
because  of  the  false  forms  into  which  some  have 
been  forced,  and  the  base  uses  to  which  they  have 
been  turned?  No;  when  he  stands  face  to  face 
with  this  natural  universalism,  he  asks.  Whence 
are  our  common  and  imperishable  religious  ideas? 
Why  do  they  everywhere  come  to  be?  Why  has 
man  Sx  history  been  what  he  has  been?    Why  has 


What  is  Religion  ?  75 

he  thought  as  he  has  thought?  These  are  necessary 
questions;  these  are  scientific  questions.  It  is  not 
enough  to  say,  certain  orders  of  ideas  are  incredible. 
There  stands  behind  us  man  in  his  history,  and  the 
whole  course  of  that  history  illustrates  man's  invaria- 
ble, uniform,  absolutely  universal  tendency  to  pro- 
duce, or  generate  if  you  like,  or  evolve  religious 
ideas,  and  to  be,  in  the  whole  of  his  institutions  and 
in  all  his  social  order,  governed  and  determined  by 
them.  Why?  that  is  the  point — why?  He  only 
who  is  able  to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  that  why, 
and  get  a  reason,  has  come  within  glimpse  of  under- 
standing the  question — What  is  religion;  for  what 
it  is  depends  in  great  part  upon  why  it  is. 

Now  I  am  not  going  to  pause  very  long  on  this 
matter — the  why — though  I  would  it  were  possible 
to  do  so.  I  stand  at  a  point  where  the  passion  and 
studies  of  my  lifetime  all  converge;  such  energy  as 
belongs  to  me  having  through  years,  and  anxious  and 
laborious  days,  been  directed  to  the  study  and  com- 
prehension of  some  of  the  great  problems  that  here 
arise.  And  when  I  see  the  shallow  way  in  which 
many  a  man  who  thinks  himself  wise — wise  from 
reading  current  magazines  or  newspapers — talks 
about  matters  of  this  kind,  I  feel,— if  he  could  only 
be  made  to  pass  through  twenty  years  of  hard  work 
along  given  lines,  he  would  get  to  know  enough  of 
the  matter  he  talked  about  to  keep  him  at  least  a 
more  modest  man.  But  that  is  a  matter  only  by 
the  way.  There  are  two  great  questions  that  arise 
out  of  that  ^'why  is  religion?"— the  one  philosophi 
cal,  the  other  historical.     The  philosophical  question 


76  Religion  in  History. 

asks  the  reason  as  to  the  existence,  as  to  the 
coming  into  being,  and  as  to  the  growth  in  history  of 
religious  ideas  and  religious  customs;  and  seeking 
this  reason,  it  comes  to  see,  what  all  history  makes 
manifest,  that  the  production  and  growth  of  these 
ideas  are  inseparable  from  the  genesis  and  evolution 
of  the  reasonable  nature  of  man.  For  what  is  his- 
tory? It  is  a  great  attempt  to  realize  man's  inmost 
mind.  It  is  but  the  externalization  of  what  lay 
contained  in  him  and  his  spirit.  You  cannot  find 
that  anything  comes  into  being  without  a  reason. 
You  create  institutions;  this  town  is  full  of  them: 
infirmaries,  societies,  unions — all  manner  of  institu- 
tions; what  are  they?  The  realization  of  ideas, 
created  by  ideas,  by  thoughts  which  imperiously  de- 
manded of  man  that  he  should  so  embody  them. 
And  it  is  the  function  of  the  philosophic  historian, 
the  man  of  science  in  the  field  of  religion,  to  get  by 
analysis  at  the  whole  history  of  the  genesis  of  the 
ideas  that  create  our  religious  institutions.  He  is 
not  concerned  simply  about  how  they  are,  he  asks 
why  they  are,  and  traces  them  back  into  man,  where 
mind  acts  and  dwells.  But  what  is  so  native  and 
necessary  to  man  is  no  matter  of  chance  or  accident; 
it  is  there  of  purpose;  it  was  built  into  his  nature  by 
his  Maker.  And  what  the  Creator  thus  purposed 
appears  everywhere  in  and  with  the  creature. 

So  much  for  the  philosophical  question,  but  the 
historical  is  quite  as  vital.  It  is  a  comparative  one, 
concerned  with  all  the  religions  of  man.  It  puts  the 
actual,  extant,  existing  religions  together,  and  com- 
pares them;  and,  comparing  them,  proceeds  on  the 


What  is  Religion  ?  *l*i 

same  scientific  principle  that  comparative  anatomy 
recognizes  when  it  sees  begin  in  the  leaf  the  struct- 
ural plan  or  purpose  which  finds  its  culmination  in 
the  glorious  form  and  moving  image  of  man.  And 
so  you  find  running  through  the  religions  a  struct- 
ural principle.  Where  that  principle  stands  highest, 
in  its  greatest  perfection,  there  and  there  only  have 
you  a  perfect  religion. 


III. 

Now  you  see  that  this  second  discussion  has  carried 
us  beyond  the  principle  which  was  the  conclusion  or 
deduction  from  our  first.  Since  man  is  unable  to 
escape  from  religion,  that  which  stands  highest  and 
is  the  best  has  most  claim  on  his  acceptance.  Mark 
this — the  people  that  has  conceived  the  best  idea  of 
a  commonwealth  is  the  people  farthest  on  the  way  to 
its  realization,  and  the  people  that  has  the  most  per- 
fect or  the  ideal  religion  has  the  greatest,  the  human- 
est,  the  wealthiest  of  all  possessions,  for  it  is  the 
condition  of  every  other  ideal  good.  But  there  is 
another  point  involved  in  this  second  discussion.  Re- 
ligion is  no  affair  of  the  churches.  They  did  not 
create  it.  It  created  them.  It  is  a  great  fact  of 
nature,  rooted  in  nature,  growing  out  of  nature,  in- 
dissolubly  connected  with  the  whole  system  of  nature 
or  order  to  which  man  belongs.  It  is  impossible  for 
man  to  be,  and  yet  to  be  without  religion — observe,  I 
say  man,  not  men.  Now,  so  much  being  determined  by 
our  two  discussions,  we  are  only  the  more  completely 
and  absolutely  thrown  back  on  our  old  question- 


78  Religion  in  History. 

What  is  religion,  this  universal,  this  natural,  this  in- 
alienable possession  of  man?    We  must  get  a  large 
idea;  and  we  must  get  a  clear  idea.      Now  perhaps 
the  best  way  for  me  to  proceed  in  attempting  to  an- 
swer this  question  will  be  by  looking  at  the  opinions 
of  some  great  men  concerning  it,  and  in  order  to  be 
perfectly  fair  and  impartial  it  will  be  best  to  drop 
theologians   out  of  account.     Theologians  may  be 
dangerous:  they  may  be,  as  it  were,  counsel  retained 
for  the  defence.     Well,  we  will  ask,  Are  there  any 
philosophers  who  can  help  us?    Yes,  many,  for  it  is 
a  mark  of  our  best  modern  philosophers  that  they  feel 
that  they  must  face  and  answer  this  question — why 
is  religion?   and  what  is   it?     You  know   the   old 
deist  who  lived  last  century  was  a  very  remarkable 
man.     He  thought  he  could  make  what  he  called  a 
religion  of  nature;  but  then  you  see  he  made  that 
religion  out  of  his  own  nature;  and  his  nature  was 
not  Nature's  nature,  but  one  that  had  been  largely 
educated,  civilized,  refined,  in  a  word.  Christianized. 
As  a  result  his  religion  was  a  purely  ideal  thing,  a 
creation  of  his  own  consciousness,  which  had  in  its 
turn  long  passed  out  of  a  state  of  nature,  and  there- 
fore could  not  make  a  natural  in  the  sense  of  a 
primitive  or  aboriginal  thing;  but  what  we  want 
from  the  philosopher  is  not  an  ideal  construction  of 
that  kind.     We  want  to  know  what  religion  is,  why 
it  is  universal,  and  what  function  it  has  to  fulfil  in 
the  life  of  the  individual  and  of  the  race. 

Now  there  are  two  points  of  view  from  which  the 
question  may  be  discussed — the  subjective  and  the 
objective,  or  religion   conceived  through  man  and 


What  is  Religion  ?  79 

religion  in  relation  to  man.  We  begin  with  the  sub- 
jective, or  more  philosophical,  for  the  function  of  a 
philosopher  is  this: — He  seeks  to  explain  what  is  or 
what  comes  to  be  through  the  nature  of  man,  through 
the  reason  or  the  subjective  personal  capabilities  of 
men.  A  pliilosopher  is  a  lover  of  wisdom,  and  he 
goes  in  search  of  his  wisdom  not  into  the  world  with- 
out, but  into  the  world  within.  But  now  it  may  as- 
tonish you — yet  it  is  true — if  I  say  that  all  knowledge 
of  the  world  without  is  built  on  or  involves  a  philoso- 
phy of  the  world  within;  and  every  natural  science 
implies  a  given  philosophy  of  knowledge  and  is  de- 
termined to  be  what  it  is,  not  by  its  own  processes, 
not  by  its  imagined  results,  but  entirely  and  abso- 
lutely by  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  thought, 
to  knowledge,  and  therefore  to  the  science  concerned 
with  what  knows.  Well,  then,  we  will  ask  these 
philosophers  to  help  us,  and  we  shall  find  them  so 
explaining  religion  that  they  fall  into  three  classes — 
those  who  have  tried  to  explain  it  through  the  intel- 
lect; those  who  have  tried  to  explain  it  through  the 
feelings;  and  those  who  have  tried  to  explain  it 
through  the  conscience. 

First,  then,  those  who  have  tried  to  explain  it 
through  the  intellect;  and  three  writers  come  here. 
One  man  says  it  is  a  matter  of  belief — altogether  of 
belief,  and  not  at  all  of  reason.  Jacobi,  a  distin- 
guished German,  said,  ^'I  believe;  by  my  faith  I  am 
a  Christian;  by  my  reason  I  am  a  heathen."  Now 
that  man's  theory  is  worth  nothing,  and  I  will  tell 
you  why.  Any  theory  that  leaves  a  division  in  a 
man's  own  soul  is  false.     If  religion   be  a  mere 


80  Religion  in  History. 

matter  of  faith,  unable  to  bear  the  light  of  reason,  it 
is  untrue  to  the  nature  the  Creator  gave  the  man. 
The  second  theory  said,  it  is  a  matter  of  intuition; 
men,  without  proof  direct,  by  action  of  intuitive 
reason,  see  the  truths  that  constitute  religion.  This 
was  Schelling's  view,  but  he  erred,  and  for  this  reason: 
a  man's  intuition  may  be  sufficient  for  himself,  but  if 
made  authoritative  for  other  men,  it  is  only  dog- 
matism; it  is  his  own  affirmation  of  what  he  knows 
made  to  have  universal  validity.  The  third  writer 
is  Hegel.  He  said,  '  ^  Religion  is  a  matter  of  thought, 
of  spirit."  Now  Hegel  stood  in  this  position: — 
People  say  that  we  have  knowledge  of  phenomena. 
They  forget  that  knowledge  is  not  phenomenal. 
Phenomena  are  what  appear.  Take  away  the  sub- 
ject to  whom  they  appear,  and  where  are  your 
phenomena?  Seek  to  find  a  world  where  there  is 
no  thought,  and  you  will  never  find  any  world  at  all. 
You  can  never  reach  a  point  where  thought  is  not. 
Thought  ever  is  the  principle  alike  of  the  intelligence 
and  the  intelligible;  without  it  man  cannot  interpret 
nature,  nor  could  nature  be  interpreted.  Hence  it  is 
implied  in  all  things  scientific,  for  the  scientific  is 
simply  the  intelligible.  And  the  thought  which 
makes  science  makes  also  experience  possible;  and 
thence  comes  this  very  vast  but  most  valid  deduction: 
as  behind  all  experience  thought  lies,  so  at  the  root 
of  the  universe  thought  is.  What  is  necessary  to 
explain  me,  is  necessary  to  explain  nature.  I  am 
thought,  and  since  phenomena  can  be  only  as 
thought  is,  then  the  reason  or  consciousness  which 
is  the  condition  of  their  existence,  cannot  be  itself 


What  is  Religion  ?  81 

one  of  them.  Nature,  then,  can  be  only  as  thought 
makes  nature,  underlies  it,  and  builds  it  into  an 
order  or  system.  And  that  is  apparent,  for  you  can 
interpret  nature  only  where  you  can  take  thought 
out  of  it,  that  is,  only  where  you  find  the  thought 
that  is  intelligible  to  your  intelligence.  There  is 
not  a  language  on  earth  that  is  not  capable  of 
allowing  translation  into  any  other  language.  This 
capability  of  being  translated  is  the  distinction 
between  language  and  gibberish.  You  can  take 
thought  out  of  Greek  and  put  it  into  English; 
you  can  take  thought  out  of  English  and  put  it  into 
Sanskrit;  you  can  take  thought  out  of  Sanskrit  and 
translate  it  into  all  the  languages  man  has  ever 
spoken.  But  what  is  the  necessary  condition? 
That  thought  be  in  the  language.  Where  there  is 
no  thought,  there  can  be  no  translation,  nor  can  there 
be  any  language.  There  must  be  reason  within  in 
order  that  reason  may  be  got  out;  and  what  is  true 
of  language  is  true  of  nature.  Man  could  not  get 
any  natural  science,  could  not  get  any  knowledge  of 
nature,  unless  nature  were  the  great  speech,  the  great 
language,  an  articulate  and  definite  expression  of 
thought.  And  as  thought  is  the  very  medium  in 
which  reason  lives  and  moves,  religion  as  something 
rational  has  to  do  with  thought,  is  our  thought  of 
the  ultimate  Being  or  Reason,  and  of  our  relation  to 
Him.  It  is  a  matter  of  the  Spirit  within  us  and 
its  relation  to  the  Spirit  without  us;  it  is  the  thought 
wherein  man,  the  individual,  places  himself  in  rela- 
tion to  the  universal — the  intelligence  in  me  to  the 
intelligence  that  underlies  all  things. 


82  Religion  in  History. 

But  now  we  come  to  the  second  class  of  explana- 
tions. ' '  Feeling, "  said  the  only  theologian  to  whom 
I  shall  here  allude,  though  he  was  quite  as  much  a 
philosopher  as  any  member  of  the  band,  ^ '  Feeling  is 
the  source  of  religion,  a  feeling  of  dependence.'' 
Now,  you  will  note,  a  feeling  of  dependence  is  a 
thought  of  dependence.  I  cannot  feel  that  I  depend 
on  anything  or  any  one  unless  I  think  of  myself  as 
dependent.  Without  thought  of  the  Independent 
upon  whom  the  dependent  self  depends,  no  feeling 
of  dependence  is  possible.  Thought  is  contained 
in  feeling.  But  another  and  specifically  English 
thinker,  with  a  similar  idea,  but  as  it  were  differently 
complexioned,  has  attempted  to  reconcile  science  and 
religion  on  the  basis  that  worship,  which  is  the 
essential  element  in  religion,  is  feeling,  the  feeling 
of  admiration.  To  admire  is  to  worship;  to  worship 
is  to  be  religious.  But,  now,  you  cannot  have 
admiration  unless  you  have  found  something  admir- 
able; and  if  you  have  found  something  admirable, 
you  have  conceived  it,  you  have  thought  it;  you 
cannot  have  admiration  without  thought.  Lastly,  in 
this  connexion,  there  comes  that  intellectually  wise 
man,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  who  says,  ^'  Religion  is  a 
feeling,  a  feeling  of  wonder,  a  feeling  of  wonder  in  the 
presence  of  the  Unknown."  Now  I  don't  wonder  at 
his  thinking  wonder  the  root  and  essence  of  religion. 
I  would,  when  his  first  principles  are  considered,  have 
wondered  exceedingly  had  he  thought  otherwise. 
It  would  be  altogether  inexplicable  were  a  man  to 
think  that  any  other  emotion  whatever  could  be 
excited  by  the  great  Unknown.     It  is  no  extra- 


What  is  Religion  ?  83 

ordinary  thing  that  a  man  who  translates  the 
Unknown  by  force,  persistent  force,  should  think 
that  wonder  was  the  one  fit  feeling,  the  feeling  in  any 
way  proper  to  religion,  that  could  arise  in  its  presence. 
But  you  see  ho  does  not  get  his  feeling  till  he  has 
got  his  thought;  you  must  conceive  that  the  Un- 
known is  before  you  can  wonder  at  it.  Yet  the 
most  wonderful  thing  of  all  is  his  theory  as  to 
the  historical  genesis  of  the  feeling.  He  derives 
the  feeling  after  the  supersensible,  after  the  divine 
— whence? — out  of  visions,  seen  in  sleep,  ghosts 
that  have  appeared  in  what  we  can  only  describe 
as  the  nightmares  of  a  benighted  and  over-fed 
savage.  Now  if  aught  shows  how  men  build 
theory  without  facing  fact,  it  is  a  theory  of  this 
sort.  There  is  not  a  historical  religion  in  the 
whole  world,  save  one,  the  Egyptian,  that  lends 
countenance  to  it,  and  that  one,  rightly  understood, 
does  not.  All  the  rest,  in  China,  India,  through  all 
Asia,  in  Europe,  in  Africa,  with  the  one  exception  I 
have  just  named,  and  in  America,  all  absolutely  rise 
up  and  refuse  to  own  it.  The  surprising  thing,  in- 
deed, is  that  a  man  claiming  to  be  a  sociologist  should 
seek  to  explain  religion  by  phenomena  that  no 
historical  religion,  with  the  proverbial  exception 
which  proves  the  rule,  recognizes  as  of  primary 
importance. 

Well,  let  us  dismiss  feeling  as  by  itself,  in  any 
sense  or  degree,  an  adequate  explanation  of  either 
the  origin  or  nature  of  religion.  All  feeling  means 
thought;  you  cannot  feel  unless  you  think;  and 
you  feel  as  you  think.     Then  there  is  the  next  class 


84  Religion  in  History, 

of  theories;  and  of  these  I  will  only  mention  two. 
One  of  them  makes  conscience  the  great  mother  ot 
religion;  or,  religion  is  our  duty  apprehended  as  a 
Divine  command.  That  is  Kant's  view;  and  the 
second  is  like  unto  it,  only  expressing  by  the  outer 
sign  the  inward  source — its  author  being  the  dis- 
tinguished Englishman,  Matthew  Arnold.  He  de- 
scribes religion  as  morality  touched  by  emotion. 
But  mark  this: — You  cannot  have  morality  without 
thought.  Thought  underlies  all,  and  is  generic, 
while  the  others  are  only  specific.  Now  religion  is 
thought;  it  is  feeling;  it  is  action.  It  is  not  one 
of  these.  Yet  it  is  all  these,  and  something  more. 
Man  thinks;  as  he  thinks,  he  feels,  as  he  thinks  and 
feels,  he  acts.  Thought  is  the  parent,  determinative 
of  feeling;  feeling  is  the  source  of  the  motive  which 
impels  to  act — that  is,  is  the  occasion  of  action,  not 
its  cause. 

Well,  when  we  analyze  this  subjective  definition, 
what  do  we  find?  That  religion  is,  on  the  side  of 
the  person,  his  thought  of  the  cause,  or  order,  or 
highest  law  under  which  he  stands,  and  the  way  in 
which  he  feels  and  acts  towards  him  or  it.  That  is 
a  very  wide  definition.  We  shall  fill  it  up  by  and 
by.  But  I  will  indicate  to  you  why  it  is  so  wide. 
It  is  wide  for  this  reason:  that  it  must  comprehend 
all  forms  of  religious  expression  or  life  that  we  may 
discover  to  exist.  These  have  wonderful  affinities. 
There  is  an  African  bending  down  before  a  fetish. 
He  offers  it  a  bribe;  or  perhaps  he  tries  the  opposite 
policy  and  castigates  it- — why?  He  thinks  it  can 
have  influence  for  good  or  for  evil  on  his  life,  and 


What  is  Religion  ?  85 

so  he  seeks  to  secure  the  good  and  prevent  the  evil. 
There,  again,  is  John  Stuart  Mill.  He  says,  speak- 
ing of  the  woman  who  became  his  wife:  ''Her 
memory  became  to  me  a  religion,  and  her  approba- 
tion the  standard  by  which,  summing  up  as  it  did  all 
worthiness,  I  endeavour  to  regulate  my  life."  So, 
the  thought,  the  memory,  and  imagined  approbation 
of  his  wife,  became  a  religion.  It  was  the  religion 
by  which  he  ordered  his  life.  In  both  there  is  a 
given  notion  or  conception  of  the  position  occupied 
and  the  influence  exercised,  in  the  one  case,  by  a 
thing,  which  is  yet  conceived  to  be  so  alive  as  to  be 
susceptible  to  flattery  or  abuse,  in  the  other,  by  a  dead 
woman,  who  yet  lives  as  a  moral  ideal;  and  there 
results,  on  the  one  hand,  the  emotion  here  of  fear, 
there  of  love,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  action, 
the  sort  of  action  the  spirit  which  is  in  the  thing  or 
the  woman  who  is  idealized,  is  supposed  to  approve. 
Then  there  is  the  Chinaman  who  has  great  ideas  of 
his  ancestors,  the  ancestral  spirits.  He  has  a  large 
calendar  of  saints,  and  a  great  hall  where  the  sages 
of  the  past  stand.  He  believes  that  all  his  people 
constitute  a  mighty  organic  whole,  and  he  propitiates 
the  spirits  of  the  dead  that  he  may  live  a  happy  and 
a  dutiful  life.  It  is  a  long  cry  from  China  to  France; 
yetComte's  notion  of  the  worship  of  humanity,  with 
its  sages  and  calendar  of  saints,  with  much  of  its 
outward  pomp  and  worship,  is  but  the  ancient 
Chinese  thought  amplified  by  baptism  into  the  rites 
and  associations  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Our  wide 
notion  of  religion  enables  us  to  comprehend  under  it 
systems  as  distant  and  dissimilar  as  these. 


86  Religion  in  History. 

IV. 

Now,  when  we  have  got  a  notion  of  religion  on 
the  subjective  side,  we  want  another  of  it  on  the 
objective;  and  here  I  must  pray  your  simple  atten- 
tion. 

1.  Looking,  then,  at  religion  on  the  objective 
side,  we  may  say,  that  the  character  of  its  highest 
conception — i.e.  the  course  or  order  or  highest  law 
under  which  man  conceives  himself  to  stand — 
determines  its  nature  and  quality;  or,  in  other  words, 
the  highest  conception  which  a  religion  possesses 
determines  its  moral  character.  A  bad  god  can 
never  have  a  good  religion.  As  is  the  deity,  such 
must  the  faith  that  is  built  on  him  be.  Find  out 
then  the  character  of  the  deity,  and  you  find  out  the 
character  of  the  religion.  In  other  words,  discover 
the  quality  of  a  man's  highest  thought,  and  you 
discover  the  character  and  quality  of  the  principles 
that  regulate  his  whole  life.  That  is  absolutely  true. 
You  may  take  it  of  religion;  you  may  take  it  of 
any  intellectual  system.  Suppose,  for  example,  that 
a  man  declares  force  to  be  the  ultimate,  or  the  only 
known  ultimate  of  ultimates,  how  would  it  affect  his 
notion  of  life  and  the  law  that  governs  conduct? 
First,  I  would  ask  you  to  consider  whence  the  man 
got  his  idea  of  force.  If  you  take  mind  away,  what 
is  force?  A  man  tells  me,  ''  I  know  only  phenomena." 
Let  me  ask  him,, are  you  then  a  phenomenon?  Are 
you?  For  if  you  are,  then  see  this:  phenomena  can 
never  determine  each  other;  they  may  co-exist  but 
they  do  not  produce  and  govern  one  another;  they 


Wliat  is  Religion  ?  87 

must  be  determined  or  governed  by  something  real. 
To  speak  in  English,  not  in  Greek — things  can 
appear  only  provided  there  are  those  to  whom  they 
appear.  Take  away  the  persons  for  whom  are  appear- 
ances, and  where,  pray,  are  the  appearances?  But, 
secondly,  without  going  into  metaphysics,  let  us  see 
this:  if  a  man  postulates  force  as  his  highest  thought, 
the  primary  or  ultimate  cause  of  all  that  is  known, 
what  follows?  Force,  according  to  its  very  idea, 
must  exact  in  every  change  an  equivalent  for  what 
is  expended.  Wherever  force  rules,  the  laws  of 
mechanics  rule;  wherever  the  laws  of  mechanics  rule, 
necessity  rules;  wherever  necessity  rules,  freedom  is 
absent;  wherever  freedom  is  absent,  morality  is 
impossible;  wherever  morality  is  impossible,  duty  is 
impossible,  and  all  the  varieties  of  service  into  which 
and  through  which  a  noble  and  ordered  society  can 
be  constructed.  The  highest  conception  thus  deter- 
mines the  whole  order  of  thought.  Now  that  idea 
of  force,  or  the  idea  of  creation  that  it  is  thought 
to  translate,  is  a  very  old  idea.  The  ancient  Hindus 
knew  it;  and  it  is  only  an  unconscious  translation 
of  Hindu  thought  into  an  ill-fitting  English  garb. 
Thousands  of  years  ago  it  stood  in  Sanskrit,  clear 
and  unmistakable,  in  more  scientific  form  than  it  has 
in  English  to-day,  with  results  which  it  is  hoped  later 
lectures  may  make  abundantly  manifest. 

2.  But,  if  you  apply  the  principle — as  is  the 
highest  thought,  so  is  the  system — to  religion,  you 
get  this  conclusion:  if  you  have  a  God  absolutely 
righteous,  absolutely  holy,  absolutely  loving,  all  the 
system  He  creates  or  builds  must  be  intended  to 


88  Religion  in  History, 

conform  to  Him.  But,  simply  because  he  is  so 
spiritual  and  moral,  its  absolute  conformity  cannot 
be  secured  by  any  mechanical  method.  If  it  were 
made  conformable  by  a  mechanical  method,  this 
would  mean  that  it  was  done  by  necessity,  and 
necessity  destroys  morality;  and  hence  we  must 
qualify  and  complete  our  first  by  a  second  principle 
— the  method  and  medium  by  which  God  secures 
conformity  to  Himself  must  be  as  moral  as  He 
Himself  is:  in  other  words,,  while  God  is  the  great 
determinative  idea  of  religion,  religion  itself  must 
always  be  realized  through  man.  It  must,  I  say, 
be  realized  through  man — man  free,  rational,  intelli- 
gent. Man  stands  open  to  God,  God  speaks  through 
man.  The  pure  in  soul  see  and  hear  Him.  Did 
you  ever  hear  an  oratorio?  Who  made  it?  Nature 
never  made  it,  nor  could  she  by  herself  alone  take 
one  step  towards  its  making.  Yet  nature  to  the  sus- 
ceptible ear  is  full  of  sounds,  soft,  loud,  low,  sweet, 
murmuring,  gentle,  varied,  is  a  very  orchestra  of 
musical,  rhythmical  sounds;  and  the  master  spirit 
gathers  into  his  vast  imagination  all  these  sounds, 
weaves  them  into  splendid  harmonies,  and  pours 
them  out  in  the  great  organ  swell,  or  the  vast  choir 
made  of  human  beings,  who  yet  make  music  as  if 
they  were  one.  And  so  the  spirit  open  to  God, 
God's  true  prophet,  is  the  great  master  spirit  telling 
the  truth  of  God  for  the  joy  and  the  life  of  men. 

3.  But  this  brings  us  to  a  third  position.  Since 
religion,  while  it  comes  from  God,  is  yet  realized 
through  men,  it  is  realized  for  the  purposes  of  God. 
It  exists  for  His  ends,  and  for  these  alone.     Now, 


What  is  Religion  ?  89 

in  looking  at  it  as  a  great  agent  for  carrying  out 
God's  purposes,  what  do  we  see?  Two  things. 
First,  religion  has  a  power  that  nothing  else  has 
of  making  bad  men  good.  There  is  no  power  like 
it  for  changing  bad  into  good,  the  profane  into  the 
holy,  the  man  unreal  into  the  man  most  true.  Science 
has  not  that  power;  nor  has  art.  Science  and  art 
witness  to  the  elevation  of  man;  they  do  not  cause  it. 
Religion  causes  the  elevation  of  man,  and  creates  his 
science  and  his  art.  Secondly,  the  progress,  the  for- 
ward movement  of  the  race  of  man,  has  been  worked 
by  good  persons,  persons  made  good  by  their  religious 
ideas.  That  is  an  absolute  law.  Sometimes  there 
is  a  sneaking  kindness  in  the  heart  of  a  people  in  a 
certain  stage  of  growth  or  decay  for  a  statesman 
who  is  a  brilliant  scoundrel,  because  they  conceive 
him  to  be  a  great,  or  an  astute  genius;  but,  when 
the  reins  of  a  state  are  in  the  hands  of  a  brilliant 
scoundrel,  the  state  is  being  driven  right  into  the 
heart  of  a  great  evil,  or  some  signal  misfortune.  It 
is  only  the  good  person  that  can  create  really  good 
things;  and  so  we  may  add,  wherever  you  have  per- 
sons, whether  inside  or  outside  Christianity,  that  lift 
men  up,  and  send  men  forward,  you  find  them  per- 
sons inspired  by  religious  ideas. 

And  now  we  must  from  these  positions  draw  what 
may  be  termed  a  provisional  conclusion: — Since 
the  great  forward  movement  of  the  world  is  worked 
by  religious  persons,  then  the  higher  their  thought 
the  greater  and  more  beneficent  their  power;  the 
purer  the  idea  that  works  in  them  and  through  them, 
the  greater  and  grander  will  be  the  religion.     I  will 


90  Religion  in  History. 

not  by  comparison  run  through  Brahmanism,  through 
Buddhism,  through  Islam,  through  Egypt,  through 
Greece;    I    will   not    try   by   comparison    to    show 
where  this  grandest  idea  is.     But  I  will  ask  you  to 
think  of  God  as  the  Saviour  has  taught  us  to  think 
of  Him,   and  then  see  how  this  bears  on  action. 
He  is  not  only  almighty,  but  He  is  good,  holy,  wise, 
loving,  tender,  compassionate,  just.     Take  for  ex- 
ample:  God  is   a  being  infinitely  good;   then  He 
cannot  but  hate  sin.  He  cannot  but  hate  all  conscious 
and   voluntary   guilt;    but    if    God    hates   sin,  the 
religious  man,  governed  by  his  idea  of  God,  hates 
it  too,  and  lives  that  he  may  end  its  reign  on  earth. 
God  is  righteous.      Then  if  He   is   righteous.   He 
cannot    but    hate    wrong;     all    forms    of   wrong, 
personal,  social,  industrial,  political  are  hateful  to 
Him;  and  the  man  who  is  a  religious  man,  governed 
by  his  thought  of  God,  must  live  to  conquer  wrong. 
God  is  tender,  compassionate;  then  all  sorrow,  all 
pain,  and  all  anguish  are  to  Him  painful,  the  cause  of 
deepest  pity  and  regret ;  and  the  religious  man  lives 
to  overcome  all  pain,  to  subdue  it,  to  minister  to  it; 
to  take  the  outcast,  and  the  lonely,  and  the  feeble, 
and  the  desolate  into  the  protection  of  his  great  pity. 
God  is  love;  then  He  loves  to  see  man  saved,  to  see 
him  happy,  to  see  happiness  multiplied  below;  and 
so  the  religious  man  is  the  man  who  saves  men,  who 
creates  happiness,  who  makes  all  earth  a  scene  of 
wider  joy  and  of  grander  moral  worth.     Theology  is 
the  interpretation  of  the  universe  through  the  idea  of 
God.     Religion  is  the  regulation  of  life  through  the 
same  great  idea;  it  is  the  application  to  all  things, 


What  is  Religion  ?  91 

and  all  events,  of  the  great,  spiritual,  moral,  ethical, 
rational  elements  contained  in  that  idea. 

Now  that  description  of  religion  has  yet  to   be 
filled  up.     Historically  we  must  deal  with  it  later. 
This  lecture  alone  cannot  be  either  complete  or,  per- 
haps, fully  intelligible,  for  it  is  only  a  vestibule,  a 
hall,  introducing  you  to  what  is  within  and  behind. 
But  even  as  the  question  now  stands,  mark  this:  re- 
ligion has  become  no  simple  way  of  merely  saving 
men;  it  saves  them — but  for  God's  ends,  not  simply 
their  own.     It  is  no  mere  method  for  giving  peace 
in  death,  or  a  happy  immortality;  it  accomplishes 
that  by  making  time  happy,  and  a  happy  society. 
Religion  is  in  order  that   eternal  justice,  eternal 
holiness,   eternal   purity,  eternal  harmony,  eternal 
love  may,  through   man,  be  made   everywhere  to 
reign  among  men.     Religion  is  that  the  purpose  of 
God  through  all  the  ages  may  by  men  be  more  per- 
fectly fulfilled.     Where  it  comes  in  its  perfection,  it 
comes  for  ends  like  these.    If  religion  be  this,  where 
is  the  man  who  would  not  be  religious? — and  relig- 
ious that  he  may  serve  God  and  work  the  good  of 
man. 


LECTURE  II. 

THE  PLACE  AND  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
IN  RELIGION. 

Last  Sunday  evening  we  were  mainly  concerned 
with  principles,  with  an  attempt  to  fix  the  ideal  or 
standard  for  judgment  in  our  discussions  on  religion. 
Without  such  a  standard  we  cannot  be  just;  can 
neither  rightly  understand,  nor  fairly  estimate, 
the  action  of  religion  in  history.  Justice  is  always 
discriminative,  and  the  man  who  has  neither 
the  patience  nor  the  mind  carefully  to  sift  a  matter 
to  the  bottom,  and  distinguish  what  does,  from 
what  does  not,  belong  to  it,  is  not  fit  to  be  a  judge. 
But  the  judge  needs  more  than  a  discerning  judg- 
ment. He  needs  an  impartial  mind  and  a  stand- 
ard or  norm,  both  moral  and  legal,  by  which  to  test 
or  measure  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  person  he 
tries.  That  impartial  mind  no  man  can  give  to 
another;  he  must  by  earnest  repression  of  passion 
and  prejudice,  by  diligent  criticism  of  his  own  temper 
and  motives,  by  cultivation  of  simple  and  honest  love 
of  truth,  gain  it,  and  keep  it  for  himself.  Goethe  said, 
' '  I  can  promise  to  be  sincere,  but  I  cannot  promise 
to  be  impartial."     Controversy  may  be  sincere,  but 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  93 

justice  must  be  both  sincere  and  impartial,  and  with- 
out justice  no  judgment  can  be  just. 

Well,  then,  it  is  your  part  to  cultivate  and  to 
exercise  the  impartial  mind;  it  was  mine  to  attempt 
to  formulate  the  standard  or  ideal  that  should  regu- 
late judgment;  in  other  words,  the  law  according  to 
which  you  were  to  be  asked  to  judge.  That  stand- 
ard or  law  was  the  idea  of  religion.  That  its  sig- 
nificance may  be  seen,  it  may  be  necessary  to  recall 
it,  or  rather,  the  steps  in  the  discussion  that  led  up 
to  and  culminated  in  it. 

Note,  then,  religion  is  not  Church.  The  churches 
are  our  means,  or  associations,  or  agencies,  for  its 
realization,  good  so  far  as  efficient,  bad  in  the  degree 
that  they  are  inefficient.  If  in  their  teaching  they 
misinterpret  its  truths,  if  in  their  action  they  pervert 
or  misrepresent  its  spirit,  then,  however  loud  their 
speech,  however  high  their  claims,  they  are  irreligiqus, 
mischievous  in  proportion  to  their  strength.  While 
religion  is  no  creation  of  the  churches,  it  is  the  high- 
est concern  of  man,  universal  as  man,  necessary  to  his 
nature,  inseparable  from  it,  needing  no  miracle  to 
create,  in  need  rather  of  a  miracle  to  uncreate,  it. 
Since  universal  as  man,  every  true  science  and  philo- 
sophy of  man  must  seek  to  understand  his  religions, 
must  find  their  reason  or  cause  in  him,  and  in  the 
system  to  which  he  belongs;  must  find,  too,  that 
since  necessary,  the  most  perfect  is  the  best  religion 
for  man,  needed  to  perfect  or  complete  his  nature. 
But,  then,  if  religion  be  universal,  by  what  terms 
may  it  best  be  expressed  or  defined?  Neither  in 
those  of  thought  or  feeling,  or  action,  but  by  some 


94  Religion  in  History. 

notion  large  enough  to  combine  the  three.  So  it  was 
described  as  man's  thought  as  to  the  cause  or  order 
or  highest  law  under  which  he  stands,  and  the  way 
in  which  he  feels  and  acts  towards  him  or  it.  Now, 
that  definition  was  wide  enough  to  comprehend  the 
most  distant  and  dissimilar  religions.  But,  then,  it 
remains  empty  till  it  be  supplemented  by  an  objective 
analysis.  Now,  that  analysis  revealed  three  points : — 
first,  that  in  a  religion  the  supreme  idea  was  the  de- 
terminative idea,  viz.,  the  thought,  or  conception  of 
God,  or  what  was  made  a  substitute  for  Him.  A 
bad  god  never  had  a  good  religion;  as  man  thinks 
of  his  deity,  so  is  he  and  so  is  his  religion.  But, 
secondly,  while  God  was  the  determinative  idea, 
religion  was  realized  through  men,  and  conditioned 
by  the  men  through  whom  it  was  realized.  And, 
thirdly,  while  realized  by  men,  it  was,  as  proceeding 
from  God,  a  means  to  His  ends.  Hence  the  better 
the  god,  the  better  the  means  and  the  nobler  the  end. 
In  short,  the  religion  is  the  conception  or  idea  of 
God  applied  to  the  ordering  of  life,  and  to  the 
organization  of  society.  If  God  be  the  absolutely 
good,  supreme  in  all  goodness,  then  to  say  that  a 
religion  worthy  of  Him  exists,  is  just  to  say  that  life 
will  be  ordered  and  society  organized  according  to 
the  highest  possible  ideal. 

Now,  this  restatement  and  summary  of  the  previous 
lecture  is  needed  for  two  reasons  in  particular — first, 
to  show  what  was  not  intended.  There  was  no  at- 
tempt at  argument  for  the  existence  of  deity,  no 
endeavour  after  a  constructive  theism.  Had  I  in- 
tended to  prove  the  being  of  God,  I  should  have 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  95 

gone  to  work  in  another  method,  along  other  lines, 
although  they  might  have  touched  at  one  point  the 
argument  of  last  evening.  It  was  the  idea  of  religion, 
not  the  idea  of  God,  that  was  under  discussion;  and 
so,  secondly,  the  purpose  was  to  explicate  and 
formulate  principles  that  should  regulate  judgment 
concerning  it.  We  are  about  to  study  certain 
religions  in  history ;  but  we  cannot  understand  their 
character  and  action,  lyiless  we  have  a  true  and 
clear  idea  of  what  religion  is  as  regards  origin  and 
essence  and  nature.  That  idea  being  formulated, 
the  principles  are  expressed  that  are  to  be  our 
standard,  our  ideal,  applied  or  implied,  in  all  our 
after  discussions. 


1.  Our  study,  then,  is  the  study  of  certain  religions 
in  history,  first  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  next, 
that  of  the  New.  Now  it  ought  to  be  possible  to 
make  that  a  scientific  study,  scientific  in  method, 
purpose,  spirit,  and  it  will  be  this,  if  we  are  able, 
in  the  brief  time  at  our  disposal,  to  discuss  the  pre- 
cise action  of  these  great  religions  in  the  history  and 
social  progress  of  man.  But  this  is  a  scientific 
study  for  a  pre-eminently  practical  purpose.  It  is 
the  duty  of  all  men  to  seek  for  the  truth,  for  only  so 
is  it  to  be  found;  but  it  is  no  less  the  interest  of  every 
man  to  discover  what  ideas  and  influences  have  been, 
in  the  long  and  varied  life  of  our  race,  morally 
and  socially  healthful,  and  what  morally  and  socially 
injurious.  It  must  be  to  the  advantage  of  every 
person  to  know  the  good;  it  can  be  to  the  profit  o[' 


96  Religion  in  History. 

no  one  to  maintain  the  pernicious  or  bad.  For  here 
we  are  all  of  us,  in  our  own  order  and  place,  workers; 
we  work  by  hand  or  brain,  we  work  at  the  desk  or 
in  the  mill,  in  the  library  or  in  the  laboratory.  And 
what  we,  as  men  who  work,  want  to  know,  is  this, 
what  are  the  best  principles  for  organizing  society, 
for  helping  the  creation  of  personal  wellbeing,  and 
no  less  for  the  making  of  the  common  weal,  and  so 
for  the  forming  of  a  true  commonwealth.  Now, 
there  is  only  one  way  in  which  we  can  do  this  with 
any  real  advantage;  we  must  study  man  in  history, 
that  we  may  discover  the  great  forces  that  have  been 
the  great  factors  of  these  results.  It  is  only  through 
the  study  of  history,  scientifically  pursued,  that  we 
can  find  out  what  ideas  and  agencies  have  most 
worked  for  good,  have,  by  their  action  alike  on  the 
individual  and  on  collective  society,  best  served  the 
progress,  the  peace,  the  wellbeing  of  the  race. 

Now,  I  confess,  frankly  and  at  once,  that  the 
truths  of  the  religions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  to  me  the  ideas  that  have  worked  most  creatively, 
beneficently,  and  progressively  in  history,  have  above 
all  others  brightened  and  enriched  the  lot  of  the  men 
who  toil.  But  let  me  also  add,  you  are  not  to  be 
asked  to  believe  this  on  my  word,  but  only  so  far  as 
it  is  by  history  and  argument  scientifically  proved. 
I  must  ask  you  to  come  to  the  inquiry  with  free  and 
unprejudiced  minds.  You  know  dogmaticism  is  not 
peculiar  to  men  who  believe;  it  is  often  more  charac- 
teristic of  men  who  disbelieve.  You  may  almost 
any  day  find  the  most  arrogant,  because  the  most 
ignorant,  dogmaticism    disguised   as    scepticism — 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  97 

indeed,  I  will  venture  to  say  you  will  find  more  in  a 
week's  issue  of  the  so-called  free  thought  press  than 
in  all  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent.  All  that 
I  wish  is  the  open  mind,  not  the  spirit  that  looks 
into  the  past  only  that  it  may  find  a  weapon  with 
which  to  beat  the  present,  but  the  spirit  only  anxious 
to  discover  the  beliefs  that  have  most  worked  for 
human  good.  To  such  a  spirit,  and  only  to  such,  is 
a  scientific  study  of  religion  in  history  possible. 

But  what  makes  a  study  scientific?  It  is  the 
method,  the  way  in  which  it  is  done.  Scientific 
study  in  the  field  of  history  simply  means,  a  skilled 
man  working  in  a  skilled  way  for  the  discovery  of  the 
truth.  Nothing  is  here  possible  without  skill,  and 
skill  gained  by  long  and  hard  and  patient  work.  No 
man  can  gain  it  by  reading  a  few  books  and  making 
them  his  authorities.  He  must  go  to  the  fountain- 
head  himself.  That  man,  and  that  man  alone,  can 
use  the  scientific  method,  who  has  steeped  his  spirit 
to  the  very  core  in  the  thought  and  mind  of  the 
people,  the  times,  the  literature,  the  religion,  he 
seeks  to  understand  and  make  understood.  A  man 
who  knows  both  to-day  and  the  past  finds  it  diflBcult 
to  be  just  to  the  past,  but  to  the  man  who  knows 
only  to-day,  justice  is  not  at  all  possible.  If  you  read 
the  past  as  you  read  the  columns  of  a  newspaper, 
and  judge  it  as  you  judge  our  current  literature,  if 
you  carry  back  into  it  the  opinions,  associations, 
standards,  and  conflicts  of  to-day,  then  you  study  it 
as  a  prejudiced  polemic  or  a  pitiful  controversialist, 
not  as  a  scientific  student.  And  what  will  be  the 
result?    Why,  you  will  never  get  at  the  truth,  you 


98  Religion  in  History. 

will  arrive  instead  only  at  falsehood  and  error;  you 
will,  besides,  do  the  most  frightful  injustice  to  the 
past  and  inflict  the  utmost  injury  on  your  own  mind 
by  persuading  it  that  it  is  seeking  for  the  truth,  when 
the  object  of  its  search  is  really  material  for  con- 
troversy. 

But  how,  then,  does  the  scientific  student  proceed? 
While  enriched  with  the  experience  and  critical  in- 
sight centuries  have  been  required  to  win,  he  so  uses 
them  as  to  look  at  the  period  he  studies  as  it  was 
amid  its  own  lights  and  under  its  own  conditions, 
judging  it  as  a  root,  not  as  a  branch  of  to-day.  He 
follows  history,  watches  its  way,  does  not  force  it  to 
take  his.  He  does  not  think  that  to  know  a  river 
you  have  only  to  look  at  it  from  the  city  that 
stands  at  its  mouth,  but  he  believes  that  to  be 
scientific  the  explorer  must  ascend  to  its  source, 
noting  and  measuring  every  rivulet  that  swells  its 
waters.  But  to  do  this  in  history,  what  do  you 
need?  You  need  imagination,  large  scholarship, 
keen  and  earnest  thought;  so  that  you  may,  as  it 
were,  live  in  the  past,  and  make  it  live  its  veritable 
life  in  the  light  of  your  pwn  eyes.  You  must  go 
back,  say,  into  the  Mosaic  age,  study  Moses,  study 
Egyi^t,  study  Mesopotamia,  study  Phoenicia,  their 
peoples,  their  religions,  their  politics,  their  social 
state,  their  morals,  their  wealth  and  poverty  and 
commerce;  you  must  study,  too,  India,  ancient 
through  modern  Arabia,  the  nascent  Isles  of  Greece 
through  their  languages  and  mythologies; — and  then, 
when  you  are  full  of  all  this  knowledge,  with  your 
imagination  quickened  and  kindled  by  it,  you  must 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  99 

construct  the  world  as  it  then  was,  and  appl}^  to 
its  peoples  and  their  conduct,  not  yours,  but  their 
own  moral  standards  and  ideas.  But  you  do  this, 
not  simply  to  know  the  given  period,  but  to  under- 
stand its  contribution  to  the  common  good  and 
progress  of  man.  You  thus  compare  the  peoples, 
their  laws,  customs,  religions,  and  religious  ideas, 
in  order  that  you  may  seek  to  find  out  where,  and 
when,  and  why  these  laws,  customs,  religions,  and 
religious  ideas  arose;  and  then,  possessed  of  this 
comparative  knowledge,  you  try  to  measure  these 
things  in  their  influence  on  the  then  present,  in 
their  influence  on  what  was  then  future,  in  their 
power  to  afiect  for  good  their  own  age,  and  the 
ages  that  were  still  to  come.  The  man  who  can  go 
back  and  make  an  old  religion  live  in  its  real  his- 
toric being  and  relations,  is  the  only  man  capable  of 
applying  the  scientific  method,  either  to  religion  or 
history. 

2.  Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  you  to-night  to  look 
at  only  one  religion,  though  we  shall  try  to  do  so  in 
this  comparative  way,  the  religion  which  has  as  its 
peculiar  literature  the  Old  Testament.  I  would  it  were 
here  possible  to  apply  to  it  in  fullest  measure  the 
historical  and  comparative  method.  But  to  do  so  and 
bring  it  and  all  the  religions  of  its  time  into  com- 
parison would  take  too  many  evenings  from  me,  and 
would  too  much  tax  your  thought  and  patience.  A 
distinguished  scholar,  whose  name  is  well  known 
throughout  Europe  as  almost  the  symbol  for  scientific 
inquiries  on  this  field,  said  but  two  months  ago  to  me, 
''If  you  want  to  prove  the  truth,  the  wisdom,  the 


100  Religion  in  History. 

sober  and  honest  history  of  the  Bible,  and  the  purity 
of  its  religion,  place  it  among  the  Sacred  Books  of 
the  East.  In  these  books  there  are  many  grains  of 
gold,  but  they  are  hid  in  mountains  of  the  most 
extraordinary  rubbish;  and  the  extraordinary  thing 
is  that  it  is  the  rubbish  that  calls  forth  the  enthusi- 
asm and  admiration  of  the  peoples  that  own  them. 
The  sobriety  of  the  Bible,  the  purity  of  its  spirit,  the 
elevation  and  devotion  of  its  tone,  make  it  occupy 
an  entirely  unique  place.  Placed  among  the  Sacred 
Books  of  the  East  the  contrast  would  make  its  truth 
only  the  more  stand  out.  "  While,  however,  it  is  here 
impossible  to  follow  the  comparative  method,  yet  let 
me  ask  for  the  Book  itself  your  earnest,  impartial, 
careful  consideration.  To  that,  indeed,  it  has  an 
indefeasible  right.  Simply  as  a  piece  of  literature 
it  is  the  most  marvellous  thing  in  the  world.  You 
call  it  a  Book,  but  it  stands  there  a  literature,  the 
creation  of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  hundred  years,  in 
fragments,  some  small,  others  larger,  each  fragment 
reflecting  its  own  age,  the  earliest  being  most  dis- 
similar and  strange  to  the  latest;  yet  with  all  its 
distance,  and  all  its  variety,  this  Book  is  so  modern, 
and  stands  so  near  to  us,  that  it  may  be  said  to  be 
of  all  the  books  in  the  world  the  nearest  to  our 
spirits.  It  contains,  from  the  literary  and  moral 
points  of  view,  the  most  remarkable  code  of  ancient 
times.  It  contains  the  quaintest,  most  beautiful, 
and  graphic  history.  It  contains  the  supreme  devo- 
tional literature  of  the  world,  the  literature  that 
men  in  their  highest  moments  of  religious  transport 
or  of  pious  meditation  have  used  to  express  thoughts 


'riie  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  101 

too  deep  for  tears.  It  contains  poetrj^  that,  simply 
as  poetry,  stands  foremost  in  its  own  order,  full  of  a 
great  sense  of  mystery,  full  of  an  awful  sense  of  suf- 
fering, pierced  and  transformed  by  a  glorious  sense 
of  God.  It  possesses  more  than  all  a  conception  of 
God  and  an  idea  of  man,  without  a  parallel  in  the 
literature  and  religions  of  the  ancient  world.  That 
Book  is  the  noblest  heirloom  of  humanity.  To  every 
man  it  belongs  as  an  inalienable  birthright.  To  its 
best  truths,  to  its  inmost  heart,  to  its  meaning,  for 
this  and  for  all  times,  you  have  all  an  indefeasible 
right.  The  worst  of  frauds  were  the  act  of  the  man 
who  should  cheat  you  out  of  it.  The  man  who  can 
use  it  only  as  the  bone  of  a  father  wherewith  to 
smite  a  son,  only  shows  himself  of  the  order  of  men 
who  rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread. 

Of  course,  I  know  what  is  said  in  certain  organs 
of  what  calls  itself  free  thought.  There  are  sayings 
in  the  Old  Testament  that  sound  not  too  refined  to 
our  dainty  and  delicate  modern  ears.  There  are 
persons  in  it  guilty  of  acts  that,  measured  by 
modern  standards,  cannot  be  called  good,  but  must 
be  pronounced  evil.  There  are  statements  in  it 
that  seem  to  conflict  with  our  latest  wisdom,  or  are 
out  of  harmony  with  our  last  new  science.  It  is 
easy  to  bring  up  hundreds  of  the  sort  of  difficulties 
which  we  find  raised  by  men  who  study  it  from  and 
on  the  polemical  platform  of  to-day.  Such  men  will 
tell  you,  in  gravest  tones,  of  difficulties  fatal  to  the 
religious  claims  and  character  of  the  book,  but  when 
you  come  to  examine  them,  they  turn  out  to  be  the 
mere  creatures  of  ignorance,  formed  out  of  a  theory 


102  Religion  in  History. 

of  the  Bible  and  its  religion,  more  akin  to  childish 
simplicity  than  to  masculine  intelligence.  Before  a 
true  theory  of  its  origin  and  meaning  these  difficul- 
ties could  no  more  live  than  a  man  could  breathe  in 
a  vacuum.  Yet  I  feel  tender  to  the  man,  so  touching 
is  his  intellectual  innocence,  who  would  reject  the 
Bible  because  of  the  doings  of  Jacob,  the  sins  of 
David,  or  the  perplexities  in  the  history  of  Cain. 
His  difficulties  come  to  me  like  a  reminiscence  out 
of  my  own  boyhood;  his  perplexities  recall  those 
that  daily  troubled  the  good  and  devout  people 
amongst  whom  my  earliest  life  was  cast,  only  they 
had  the  wisdom  to  see  that  what  perplexed  them  be- 
longed to  the  incidents  of  the  history,  not  to  the 
essence  of  the  religion. 

But,  now,  instead  of  dealing  with  such  things  as 
if  deserving  of  grave  and  detailed  criticism,  let  me 
ask  you  a  question,  Do  you  thing  these  difficulties 
explain  the  Bible,  the  power  it  has  had,  and  still 
has?  Do  they  help  you  to  understand  it  better, 
or  do  they  make  it  in  any  degree  intelligible  to 
you?  Do  they  not  when  regarded  as  making  it 
incredible,  and  unworthy  of  respect,  rather  make  it 
and  its  influence  utterly  unintelligible?  For,  think, 
in  making  the  Bible  ridiculous,  what  is  it  you  make 
ridiculous?  It  is  not  simply  a  Book — that  were  a 
small  matter,  but  it  is  a  race,  nay,  two  races,  the 
two  that  have  done  most  for  civilization,  that  have 
created  it,  that  form  the  noblest  flower  and  fruit  of 
humanity.  What  makes  the  Bible  ridiculous,  makes 
man  so;  what  makes  man  ridiculous,  turns  his  his- 
tory into  the  very  march  of  unreason.      You  say, 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  103 

perhaps,  '  '■  These  things  oflFend  my  conscience,  and 
what  offends  my  conscience  I  must  condemn. "  Good; 
they  offend  my  conscience,  and  my  conscience  con- 
demns them ;  but  to  condemn  the  doings  of  Jacob  or 
the  sins  of  David  is  not  to  condemn  the  Bible,  nay,  is 
rather  to  vindicate  it,  for  it  did  not  record  these  things 
for  our  approval,  but  for  our  disapproval  on  the  one 
hand,  and  for  our  personal  instruction  on  the  other. 
What  conscience  disapproves,  ought  not  to  be  spoken 
of  with  approval,  whoever  or  whatever  may  command 
us  to  do  so.  But  before  a  man  uses  the  judgment 
of  his  conscience  on  the  acts  of  certain  men  or  a 
certain  nation  as  a  reason  why  he  should  despise  the 
Bible  and  reject  its  religion,  ought  he  not  to  raise  this 
prior  question : — Whether  he  has  got  at  the  meaning 
of  the  book,  and  whether  he  understands  the  methods 
of  its  use?  Think  what  the  Bible  has  been  to  the 
devoutest  and  most  pious  of  our  race,  the  most  moral, 
the  most  humane,  the  most  gentle  to  men,  the 
most  obedient  to  God.  Has  it  not  been  their  inspira- 
tion for  good,  the  power  that  has  entered  their  lives 
and  lifted  them  from  the  lowest  of  sensuous  levels  to 
the  highest  and  noblest  of  spiritual  ideals?  And 
ought  not  this  simple  fact  alone  make  our  innocent 
objectors  pause  and  ask,  whether  it  is  the  Bible  or 
their  theory  of  the  Bible  that  is  at  fault  ?  whether  it 
has  been  the  fortune  of  their  ignorance  to  find  what 
knowledge  missed,  or  whether  there  has  befallen  it 
the  fate  of  the  unskilled  sailor,  who  has  mistaken 
the  ripple  on  a  sandbank  for  the  long  roll  of  the 
Atlantic  waves. 


104  Religion  in  History. 


1.  But  these  are  mere  introductory  and  formal  ques- 
tions; and  we  must  hasten  to  others  more  radical 
and  material.  What  concerns  us  is  the  place  and 
the  significance  of  the  book  in  religion,  and  of  its 
religion  among  religions.  Now,  note  this  self-evident 
and  apparent  distinction: — the  book  is  the  history  of 
a  religion,  it  is  not  a  history  which  is  a  religion,  and 
it  is  with  the  religion  and  its  history,  and  not  simply 
with  the  book,  that  we  are  here  concerned.  I  do  not 
deny  that  reason,  conscience,  judgment,  and  all  the 
faculties  of  criticism  must  be  exercised  upon  and 
about  the  book,  but  it  is  less  the  book  than  its  religion 
that  we  want  to  understand.  And  note,  next,  as  the 
book  is  a  history,  or  the  materials  for  a  history,  so 
our  concern  with  it  relates  not  to  questions  in  its 
literary  criticism,  but  to  the  beginning  or  origin, 
the  matter  or  nature,  the  growth,  the  progress, 
and  the  culmination  of  the  religion.  You  have  to 
study  the  religion  in  what  it  was,  what  it  did,  and 
what  it  became.  In  its  course  there  is  much  mixed 
up  with  it  that  is  historical  setting,  that  belongs 
to  place  or  time.  But  it  is  the  kernel,  the  ever- 
lasting essence,  the  pre-eminent  and  abiding  sub- 
stance that  here  concerns  us,  not  what  by  the  way 
falls  off  and  perishes. 

Now,  mark,  the  religion  is  said  to  come  from  God. 
That  is  not  an  incredible  or  irrational  proposition: 
Nay,  it  is  one  that  has  the  highest  reason,  though  to 
attempt  to  demonstrate  its  reasonableness  would  lead 
us  too  far  away  from  our  proper  subject.    That  revela- 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  105 

tion  is  possible  is  here,  if  not  conceded,  yet  assumed. 
I  do  not  speak  to  atheists.  I  do  not  speak  as  an 
atheist,  but  as  a  theist  to  theists.  And  now  to  say 
that  God  is,  is  simply  to  say  that  revelation  is  possible; 
to  say  that  God  is  not,  is  simply  to  say  that  revelation 
is  impossible.  If  He  is.  He  must  be  free  to  act;  if 
He  acts,  He  must  be  free  to  stand  in  relation  to  man; 
if  He  is  free  to  stand  in  relation  to  man,  He  can 
speak  to  him  and  through  him.  There  is  a  theism 
that  denies  God  in  fact,  though  it  affirms  Him  in 
words.  The  man  who  so  limits  God's  activity  as  to 
prevent  His  action  every  moment  and  in  relation  to 
every  man  is  no  theist,  but  in  the  strict  historical 
sense  of  the  term  a  deist.  Deism  set  God  at  a  great 
distance  from  nature  and  man.  The  world  went 
according  to  its  own  laws,  without  any  help  from 
Him;  indeed  all  such  help  was  described  as  inter- 
ference or  intervention,  as  it  were  a  violation  of  law 
on  the  part  of  Him  who  made  the  law;  but  to  me 
such  a  deism  is  only  atheism  in  providence.  As  I 
conceive  matters,  the  laws  of  nature  are  modes  of 
God's  action,  they  simply  express  His  ceaseless 
activity.  Man's  relation  to  God  is  based  on  God's 
prior  relation  to  man,  and  so,  if  the  being  of  God  be 
granted,  manifestative  or  self-communicative  action, 
or,  in  other  words,  revelation,  and  as  a  consequence, 
religion  follows  as  a  logical  necessity,  which  only 
means  a  necessity  in  reason.  Revelation  and 
religion  but  express  the  continued  activity  of  God ; 
the  idea  of  God  regulates  the  history  of  tlie  revela- 
tion and  determines  the  character  of  religion. 
Since  religion  is  from  God  but  through  man,  uuiii 


106  Religion  in  History, 

is  the  condition  through  which  the  institutive  revela- 
tion comes.  But,  coming  through  man,  it  partakes 
of  the  imperfect,  the  earthly  quality  of  the  vessel 
that  bears  it.  To  an  absolutely  perfect  religion, 
you  need  an  absolutely  perfect  vehicle.  Until  you 
get  the  perfect  vehicle,  you  have  not,  and  cannot 
have,  perfect  religion. 

Again,  religion  comes  through  men  to  make  man 
perfect.  Since  it  does  not  come  to  man  as  already 
perfect,  it  falls  necessarily  under  the  law  of  human 
progress.  You  cannot  create  a  perfect  moral  char- 
acter. A  perfect  physical  creature  may  be  created, 
but  a  perfect  moral  creature  is  incapable  of  creation. 
He  must  act,  he  must  be  disciplined,  he  must  be 
taught;  he  is  made  perfect  by  the  things  which  he 
suffers.     He  is  like 

Iron  dug  from  central  gloom. 
And  heated  hot  with  burning  fears. 
And  dipt  in  baths  of  hissing  tears. 

And  batter' d  with  the  shocks  of  doom 
To  shape  and  use. 

But  this  carries  with  it  necessarily  the  position — 
since  man  is  the  vehicle  or  form  through  whom 
religion  comes,  then  it  begins  to  come  to  man  in  his 
least  perfect  moment  in  order  that  it  may  prepare 
him  for  a  more  perfect  state.  To  think  that  the 
ideal  of  religion  is  at  the  earliest  moment  of  its 
appearance  already  manifested  in  ideal  men,  is  to 
have  no  historical  sense,  and  so  no  faculty  for  the 
scientific  study  of  history.  It  comes  to  the  man,  to 
the  people,  or  the  race,  to  make  the  man,  the  people, 
or  the  race,  into  the  perfect  beings  they  need  to  be- 
come.    Primarily  and  necessarily  the  man  is  below 


TJie  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  lOT 

the  religion,  but  his  elevation  is  ordered  and  meas- 
ured by  its  development.  The  religion  comes  to  lift 
the  man.  And  so  its  history  exhibits,  on  the  one 
hand,  a  process  in  man  and,  on  the  other,  a  progress 
in  idea  and  institution;  the  process  is  the  greater 
fitness  of  the  vehicle,  the  progress  is  the  greater 
perfection  of  the  religion. 

2.  Now  these  statements  and  distinctions  will 
help  us  to  deal  with  the  history  of  the  religion  which 
we  believe  to  have  come  from  God,  but  know  to  have 
been  realized  through  man.  It  has,  therefore, 
necessarily  the  imperfection  of  the  form  through 
which  it  comes,  conditioning  what  belongs  to  the 
perfection  of  the  source  whence  it  proceeds.  But 
from  these  more  or  less  external  questions,  let  us  now 
advance  to  questions  essential  and  central;  and  note 
this — the  distinctive,  the  great  determinative  prin- 
ciple in  the  Old  Testament  was  the  conception  of  God. 
And  you  must  distinguish  here  between  the  con- 
ception and  its  history,  what  belongs  to  it  by  virtue 
of  its  own  nature,  and  what  belongs  to  its  reflection 
in  the  minds  and  in  the  history  of  the  men,  or 
people  to  whom  it  came. 

We  shall  take  the  conception  first;  and  here  we 
must  note  that  it  was  a  new  thing  in  the  world.  It 
came  expressing  faith  in  one  God,  a  monotheism, — 
the  parent  of  all  other  monotheisms.  As  it  was 
the  first  it  became  the  greatest  and  purest,  and  it 
expressed  this  pre-eminence  in  two  emphatic  ways, 
by  name  and  by  character. 

(i.)  By  name.  This  age  is  greatly  exercised  to 
discover  a  name   for  the  Primary   Cause.     It  has 


108  Religion  in  History. 

been  termed  the  Unconditioned,  the  Unknown,  the 
Unknowable,  the  Unconscious,  the  Infinite,  negatives 
all  without  a  single  positive  trait.  But  of  all  the 
names  for  the  ultimate  Cause  or  God  ever  discovered, 
the  grandest  yet  most  descriptive  was  that  used  by 
the  old  Hebrew  men.  Note  that  name — Jehovah, 
or  Yahveh;  Lord  as  it  is  given  in  our  English  ver- 
sion, or  as  the  French  give  it,  the  Eternal.  Now,  if 
you  resolve  it  into  its  original  speech,  what  does  it 
mean?  Its  meaning,  though  about  it  there  have 
been  many  discussions,  is  yet  clear.  It  must  mean 
either  He  who  is,  or  He  who  causes  to  be.  It  is  then 
a  verb,  but  it  is  a  verb  used  as  a  proper  name,  He 
who  causes  to  be,  or  He  who  is. 

But  apart  from  this  all  the  older  and  earlier  names 
of  God  came  from  one  of  two  sources.  First,  they 
were  borrowed  from  nature,  its  phenomena,  pro- 
cesses, or  events.  Such  were  the  Indo-European 
names,  those  of  the  stock  to  which  we  ourselves  be- 
long. Their  names  were  all  primarily  physical  terms, 
the  earth,  the  sun,  the  blue  heaven,  the  starry 
heaven,  the  great  sea,  the  hills,  the  moon,  the  dawn, 
the  sunset.  These  all  provided  names  for  God,  but 
mark  the  result !  The  gods  all  partook  of  the  quali- 
ties of  the  nature  that  supplied  them  with  names; 
like  it  they  were  unstable,  stormy,  tempestuous,  var- 
iable; they  had  a  created  and  limited  being,  and  were 
gifted  with  passions  like  men,  so  that  when  men 
stood  in  relation  to  them,  it  was  as  fully  on  a  par  or 
equality  with  them.  And  this  followed — no  people 
of  our  stock  ever  thought  of  God  as  a  Creator,  not 
one.     Wise  people  in  these  days  say,  the  idea  of  a 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  109 

cause  created  the  idea  of  God.  But  we  must  recog- 
nize this  plain  historical  fact,  that  not  a  single  prim- 
itive god  of  the  race  to  which  we  belong,  from  India 
to  Western  America,  had  the  idea  of  creation  asso- 
ciated with  him.  Every  god  was  a  created  being, 
stood  in  the  circle  of  nature,  passionate,  stormy, 
variable,  manlike. 

The  second  great  source  of  divine  names  was  Man, 
his  political  offices,  metaphysical  attributes  or  func- 
tions. God  was  called  the  strong,  or  the  mighty; 
He  was  called  the  King,  or  the  Lord,  and  men  were 
His  servants.  Now,  the  stock  of  which  the  Jews 
came  used  names  of  this  order,  and  what  did  the 
usage  mean?  That,  as  the  King  was,  so  was  the 
god  conceived  to  be,  as  was  the  Lord,  so  was  the 
Almighty.  In  the  East  the  despot  reigned,  and  so 
God  was  thought  to  be  arbitrary,  cruel,  bloodthirsty, 
propitiated  by  human  sacrifice.  In  the  East,  kings 
cared  not  for  men,  but  only  and  always  loved  power, 
even  though  bought  by  blood  and  death.  And  as 
were  the  kings  such  were  the  gods, — violent,  des- 
potic, prone  to  an  anger  that  could  be  appeased  only 
by  blood. 

These,  then,  were  the  old  conceptions,  but  now 
came  this  new  great  conception: — God  is  not  a  mul- 
titude. He  is  one,  and  we  call  Him  by  no  name  that 
suggests  man,  by  no  name  that  suggests  nature;  we 
call  Him — He  who  is.  He  who  causes  to  be.  He  is 
one,  beside  whom  is  no  fellow.  He  is  a  person;  His 
''Thou"  stands  over  against  my  ''I,"  He  is  not 
caused,  but  He  causes;  is  boundless,  mighty,  potent, 
powerful,  personal,  Jehovah.     This  name  of  God, 


110  Religion  in  History, 

this  great  and  mighty  name,  could  help  men  to  think 
under  other  forms,  in  another  and  nobler  fashion,  of 
the  great  and  supreme  One. 

(ii.)  Now,  note  the  next  point — the  character. 
The  fundamental  idea  as  to  character  stands  ex- 
pressed in  the  formula,  ^^  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy." 
God  is  holy,  and  only  a  holy  man,  only  a  holy  peo- 
ple, can  please  Him.  Therefore,  the  religious  man 
must  be  a  good  man.  ''Of  course,"  you  say,  ''of 
course.  We  all  expect  a  religious  man  to  be  a  good 
man.  The  most  pious  ought  to  be  the  most  honour- 
able of  men."  But,  pray,  why  do  you  expect  him  to 
be  this?  No  heathen  of  antiquity  ever  expected  any 
such  thing.  Piety  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  gen- 
eral personal  virtues;  ethics  were  the  concern  of  the 
schools  and  the  poets,  not  of  the  temple  and  the 
priests.  A  religious  man  in  the  ancient  world  did 
not  need  to  be  a  good  man.  Why,  the  gods  them- 
selves were  not  good, — often  most  utterly  iniquitous 
and  bad.  In  India,  in  the  old  hymns  you  could  get 
written  in  honour  of  a  god  a  drinking  song  that  any 
man  in  these  days  in  an  hour  of  hilarity  might  fitly 
sing.  In  beautiful,  skilful,  radiant  Greece,  what  was 
Zeus,  their  great  god? — an  adulterer;  what  was 
Aphrodite? — personified  lust.  If  you  had  said  to  a 
Greek,  you  ought  to  be  god-like,  he  would  have  said, 
"Nay,  I  will  be  man-like;  that  is  more  noble  and 
honourable  than  to  live  after  the  manner  of  the  gods." 
And  if  you  had  gone  east  into  Phoenicia  where  the 
neighbours  of  the  Jews  lived,  what  would  you  have 
found? — You  would  have  found  gods,  impurest  of  the 
impure,  served  not  only  by  human  sacrifice,  but  by 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  in 

blackest,  vilest,  human  lust.  Religion  was  no  moral 
thing  then,  in  any  degree  whatever,  and  where  it 
had  power  without  morality  its  power  worked  in  the 
most  immoral  way.  Imagine  then,  the  transcendent 
moment  for  man,  the  moment  of  supremest  promise, 
of  grandest  hope,  when  the  idea  of  a  moral  deity  en- 
tered his  heart,  and  passed  into  his  history,  when 
all  the  energies  of  religion  came  to  be  moral  energies 
for  the  making  of  moral  men.  That  was  a  moment, 
I  call  it,  of  revelation — you  may  call  it  of  supreme 
guesswork  or  grandest  discovery;  or  you  may,  by 
magnifying  incidental  difficulties,  attempt  to  conceal 
from  yourselves  its  meaning.  Yet  it  were  only  to 
speak  with  prosaic  soberness  were  we  to  say, — the 
moment  when  gravitation,  navigation,  the  secret  of 
the  sea,  of  the  sun,  or  the  stars,  or  the  earth,  were 
discovered  had  neither  singly  nor  all  combined  equal 
or  even  approximate  significance  for  man.  Take 
from  the  heart  of  him  this  religion  steeped  in  moral- 
ity, made  living  by  the  moral  character  of  its  God, 
and  you  will  leave  him  without  the  grandest  energy 
working  for  good  and  peace  and  progress  that  ever 
came  into  his  history  or  into  his  heart. 

3.  Now  let  us  see  where  we  stand:  we  have  got 
the  distinctive  character  and  quality  of  the  new 
idea: — God  is  one,  personal,  supreme,  self-existent, 
a  Being  who  can  be  named  after  no  object  in  nature, 
and  no  attribute  or  office  of  man,  but  only  as  He 
who  is  or  He  who  causes  to  be.  And  He  is  moral 
— high  and  severe  in  righteousness,  He  loves  good 
and  hates  evil.  As  He  is  His  people  ought  to  be; 
no  service  but  moral  service  can  be  acceptable  to 


112  Religion  in  History. 

Him.  Such,  then,  was  the  idea;  but  it  was  one  thing 
to  get  it,  another  to  translate  it  into  reality  and  life. 
A  generation  may  suffice  for  the  one,  but  centuries 
are  needed  for  the  other.  The  ideal  was  of  God, 
but  the  realization  was  through  man,  and  we  must 
distinguish  what  belonged  to  the  perfect  Source  from 
what  was  proper  and  peculiar  to  the  imperfect  me- 
dium. The  religion  did  not  stoop  to  the  level  of  the 
people,  the  people  had  to  struggle  up  to  the  altitude 
of  the  religion,  and  their  struggle  was  attended  by 
many  an  error,  many  a  fall,  and  many  a  wilful  apos- 
tasy. Indeed,  it  remained  ever  far  above  them,  and 
so  proved  its  divinity,  just  as  their  failure  proved  their 
humanity.  Consider  what  they  were,  and  where 
they  stood,  when  they  received  the  religion  of  God 
and  His  law.  Slaves,  just  escaped  from  Egypt,  with 
the  vices  of  their  kind,  ignorant,  unstable,  stubborn, 
impatient  of  freedom,  accustomed  to  a  cruel  and 
crushing  tyranny,  rebellious  under  an  authority  too 
moral  to  coerce.  Then,  imagine  them  settled  in 
their  old  land^  undisciplined  men,  unfamiliar  with 
an  ordered  life,  with  all  the  arts  of  peace  to  learn, 
surrounded  by  such  religions  as  I  have  described, 
envious  of  the  licence  they  allowed,  anxious  to  be  let 
sin  as  their  neighbours  sinned,  and  to  conceive, 
appease,  and  please  Jehovah  as  the  other  peoples 
conceived  and  appeased  and  pleased  their  gods. 

Now,  let  me  put  two  questions  to  you,  how  ought 
you  to  judge  a  people  so  placed?  By  the  standards 
of  our  day,  or  of  their  own?  And,  again,  how 
ought  you  to  judge  their  religion, — through  the  peo- 
pie,  or  the  people  through  it?     In  the  first  place, 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion,  113 

could  you  conceive  a  people  so  situated  and  so  con- 
stituted, producing  of  their  own  mere  will  and  out 
of  their  own  poor  nature  such  a  religion?  It  stood 
in  conflict  with  their  habits,  their  passions,  with  all 
their  circumstances,  with  what  they  most  liked  and 
most  desired.  Now,  can  that  which  stands  in  radical 
contradiction  to  a  nature  be  a  product  of  the  nature 
it  radically  contradicts?  In  the  next  place,  can  you 
wonder  that  the  religion  and  the  people  were  often 
in  collision?  The  collision  was  altogether  to  its 
honour— its  standard  being  so  high,  but  altogether 
in  keeping  with  their  nature,  its  tendencies  and 
instincts  being  what  they  were.  Yet  why  do  you 
judge  the  Hebrews  more  harshly  than  you  judge 
any  other  people  of  antiquity?  I  am  not  saying  you 
are  wrong  in  so  judging,  I  am  only  asking  the 
reason.  They  were  not  worse,  they  were  better 
than  their  neighbours.  Their  kinsmen,  the  Arabs, 
were  incomparably  more  cruel,  treacherous,  and 
bloodthirsty.  The  Phoenicians,  kinsmen  too,  far 
richer  and  more  cultivated,  were  proverbial  for  lust, 
lying,  and  greed,  for  a  horrible  lasciviousness  that 
made  them  pollute  every  shore  and  people  they 
touched.  The  Assyrians,  also  kinsmen,  were  tyran- 
nous, ruthless,  and  exterminating  to  a  degree  that 
made  them  hated  and  feared  throughout  all  the 
ancient  world.  Now,  why  are  you  so  severe  to  the 
comparatively  moral  and  inoffensive  Hebrews,  while 
you  are  silent  as  to  the  awful  immoralities  that 
made  kindred  and  contemporary  peoples  a  positive 
plague,  causes  of  utmost  disaster  to  their  own  and 
later  times?    Is  it  not  because  you  expect  more  of 


114  Religion  in  History. 

the  Hebrews,  which  surely  can  only  mean  that  you 
judge  them  by  a  higher  law.  But  why  do  you  so 
judge  them?  Is  it  not  because  you  think  them 
possessed  of  such  a  law,  and  hold  them  to  be  men 
bound  to  live  according  to  it?  But  do  you  not 
see  that  in  so  judging,  you  are  paying  the  highest 
possible  tribute  to  their  religion?  To  the  degree 
that  you  condemn  the  men,  you  praise  their  law; 
in  holding  that  they  ought  to  have  been  the  best  in 
living,  you  acknowledge  that  their  religion  was  the 
best.  The  standard  you  apply  to  Israel,  Israel  sup- 
plied to  you,  but  in  falling  below  it,  what  did  Israel 
confess  but  that  his  standard  was  not  of  himself,  but 
of  his  God? 

III. 

1.  We  have  seen,  then,  the  new  theistic  or  religious 
idea  and  the  people  in  themselves  and  in  their  mutual 
relations.  We  must  now  proceed  a  step  further. 
Remember  that  the  determinative  thing  in  religion 
is  the  character  of  God.  Well,  we  have  got  a  Go4 
with  a  moral  character,  but  have  made  no  attempt 
at  an  analysis  of  its  moral  elements.  These,  when 
we  first  find  the  idea,  are  few  and  simple,  but  its 
character  becomes  in  process  of  time  ethically  suh- 
limer,  purer,  richer.  Here,  the  first  thing  necessary 
is  to  see  how,  even  in  its  simplest  form,  the  new  idea 
affected  the  organization  of  society  and  the  regulation 
of  life.  These  two, — the  thought  of  the  divine  and 
the  thought  of  the  human, — are  related  £is  ide^l  and 
reality,  as  design  and  structure;  and  so  we  can  test 
by  history  the  action  of  the  divine  idea  in  human 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  115 

society  and  life.     For  here  it  acted  according  to  a 

law  common  in  all    religions,  the    highest  idea   is 

distinguished  from  all  others  by  its  being  the  force 

which  causes  the  society  to  crystallize  or  become  an 

organism.     In  order   that  we   may  perceive  what 

this  means,  let  me  ask — Suppose  you  conceive  God 

as  force,  or  soul,  or  energy,  without   morality  or 

moral   character,    then    how  would    you    conceive 

human  life  and  human  society?     A  man  may  say, 

'■  '■  I  believe  in  force,  and  I  believe  in  necessity,  yet  I 

am  a  moral  man,  and  hold  a  moral  theory  of  life." 

But  see,  there  is  no  logic  like  the  logic  of  fact.    There 

is  no  law  of  reason  so  inevitable  as  the  law  that  fulfils 

itself  in  historical  movement.     We  are  able  to  see 

when  we  turn  to  history  the  regulative  and  organizing 

power  of  a  highest  conception  which  is  void  of  moral 

qualities  and  acts  by  necessity,  working  on  the  most 

stupendous  scale.     Let  us  look  at  India.     What  has 

been  the  great  organizing  power  of  society  there? 

The  notion  of  Brahma.     That  name  represents  a 

conception   as  nearly   as   possible  parallel  to   Mr. 

Herbert  Spencer's  ' '  persistent  force. "    Brahma  is  an 

ever-acting  indestructible  energy.    From  him  proceed 

by  necessity  all  the  forms,  varieties,  forces  of  life. 

What  men  call  the  soul,  comes  to  be  by  necessary 

law,  revolves  through  innumerable  cycles,  remaining 

in  each  and  in  all  the  same  as  to  essence,  changing 

only  its  form.     The  human  person  is  a  transitory 

shape  or  vehicle,  which  incarnates   and  carries  the 

soul— which  is  an  entity,  or  atom,  or  invisible  force 

that  circles  from  form  of  being  to  form  of  being, 

until  its  cycle  of  multitudinous  changes  being  com- 


116  Religion  in  History. 

plete  it  is  absorbed  into  Brahma.     The  life  that  now 
is,  which  is  determined  by  lives   that  have   been, 
determines  in  its  turn  lives  to  be;  each  life  is  but 
one  new  link  in  the  chain  forged  by  Brahma,  who  sits 
at  the  source  of  Being,  a  necessitated  creator,  and 
waits  at  its  end,  an  unconscious  goal.     While  indiv- 
idual life  is  so  conceived,  what  of  the  social,  the 
collective?    Man's  place  here  is  determined  by  that 
awful,  inevitable  force  which  binds  his  various  forms 
of  existence   together.     Now,    as   it   depended  on 
whence  the  soul  or  person  had  first  proceeded,  from 
the  head  or  from  the  feet  of  Brahma,  whether  the 
man  was  to  be  high  caste  or  low  caste,  so  the  whole 
social  system  was  a   system  that  expressed   in  an 
organized  form  the  operation  of  an  unmoral  cause. 
There  was  no  moral  basis  of  society,  only  one  of 
prerogative  and  privilege;  and  so,  as  a  necessary 
result,  to  break  caste  was  to  break  the  highest  law. 
There  was  no  sin  like  the  sin  of  infidelity  to  caste,  the 
worst  apostasy  was  for  a  high  caste  to  become  an  out- 
cast, the  last  presumption  for  a  low  caste  to  attempt 
to  enter  a  higher.     And  so  India  represents  a  society 
organized  on  the  principle  of  a  creative  force  with- 
out moral  idea  or  quality,  and  shows  on  the  most  stu- 
pendous scale  that  from  such  a  conception,  the  only 
possible  result  is  tyranny,  or  a  life  governed  by  an 
unmoral  necessity.     If  the  cause  of  man  and  society 
be  not  moral,  neither  the  man  nor  the  society  can 
recognize  moral  law  as  their  regulative  principle, 
and  where  moral  law  is  not  so  recognized,  force, 
— either  physical,  civil,  or  sacerdotal, — is  the  only 
alternative. 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion,  11 Y 

2.  Let  us  turn  now  lo  tne  regulative  and  organizing 
action  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  God.  This  we 
have  to  observe  in  its  most  rudimentary  form  in  the 
Mosaic  Society.  And  here  let  me  ask  you  to  note 
what  I  may  call  its  extraordinary  Secularism.  By 
that  term  I  mean  to  indicate  the  place  given  to  time, 
and  to  realizing  in  time  the  order  that  should  express 
the  mind  and  will  of  God.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of 
exegetical  and  historical  fact,  that  of  all  religions  in 
antiquity,  the  Mosaic  laid  least  stress  upon  the  future 
state,  or  life  to  come.  This,  of  course,  relates  to  its 
earliest  stage.  But  it  is  here  that  the  value  of  the 
idea  as  a  new  basis  for  society  can  best  be  seen. 
There  was  a  very  great  and  learned  book  written 
last  century  by  a  most  belligerent  divine,  a  mighty 
man  of  controversial  valour — Bishop  Warburton.  Its 
name  was  The  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  and  its 
purpose  was  to  prove  what  has  been  well  held  to  be 
a  paradox,  this,  namely,  that  the  Hebrew  or  Mosaic 
religion  was,  by  its  not  appealing  to  the  sanctions 
of  the  future,  proved  to  be  of  divine  institution, 
and  altogether  miraculous  in  character.  All  other 
religions,  it  was  argued,  maintained  their  authority 
by  invoking  the  sanctions  of  another  world.  To  this, 
the  Hebrew  was  an  exception,  and  since  it  ruled 
without  help  from  the  future,  it  could  only  have 
come  to  be  by  the  direct  action  of  God,  and  have  con- 
tinued authoritative  by  His  immediate  and  constant 
guidance  and  superintendence.  Now,  I  do  not  mean 
to  endorse  that  opinion,  or  even  so  much  of  it  as 
relates  to  the  absence  of  the  sanction  drawn  from 
the  future  life,  but  this  I  mean  to  do,  to  say  that 


118  Religion  in  History, 

emphasis  was  in  the  Mosaic  state  laid  op  the  present, 
on  time,  on  the  construction  of  such  a  state  in  the 
world  that  now  is  as  should  be  altogether  in  harmony 
with  the  will  of  God.  The  men  who  were  called  to 
constitute  that  state,  were  not  invited  to  do  so  in 
view  of  rewards  and  punishments  that  were  to  follow 
in  another  life.  They  were  not  able  to  glory  in  the 
inequalities  of  this  life  as  certain  to  be  redressed  by 
the  rewards  of  the  life  to  come.  They  were  not 
persuaded  to  neglect  the  transient  present  because  of 
an  imperishable  future,  but  they  were  told  to  build 
up  where  they  stood,  as  living  men,  a  city  that  was 
in  its  laws,  in  its  character,  its  work,  its  ideal,  to  be 
a  city  of  God,  a  state  constituted  and  constructed 
according  to  the  divine  plan.  And  this  was  to  be 
done  because  God,  who  created  the  world,  so  com- 
manded. And  as  he  was  moral,  the  laws  that 
were  at  the  root  of  the  whole  were  moral  laws, 
enforced  reverence  to  God,  dependence  upon  Him, 
worship  that  was  moral  obedience,  truthfulness, 
honesty,  chastity,  neighbourliness,  filial  devotion, 
and  love. 

Two  points  here  call  for  notice: — first,  the  in- 
dependence of  the  Mosaic  ideal  of  the  future  proves 
the  absolute  independence  of  the  Mosaic  religion  of 
Egypt.  The  Egyptian  religion  was  a  religion  of  the 
future,  absolutely  and  altogether  concerned  about 
man's  happiness  there.  The  Mosaic  was  the  religion 
of  the  present,  making  men  work  in  it  for  God  and 
His  purposes,  for  man  and  his  good.  And,  secondly, 
this  religion,  as  giving  a  moral  law  alike  to  the 
individual  and  to   society,  was  an  absolutely  new 


Tfie  Old  Testament  in  Heligion.  II9 

thing.  Not  only  did  it  directly  concern  the  present, 
but  the  idea,  as  applied  to  the  governance  and 
organization  of  life,  made  God  the  supreme  law-giver, 
while  His  supreme  law  was  moral.  lie  founded  the 
state,  He  gave  the  law.  He  called  the  state  into 
being  for  His  purposes,  and  to  do  so  was  to  give  it  a 
sublimity  that  no  other  ancient  state  had,  a  universal- 
ity not  of  fact,  but  of  idea,  that  made  it  without  a 
parallel  or  peer  amid  all  the  ancient  states  and 
empires.  Where  the  fundamental  laws  of  a  people 
are  moral,  and  are  the  laws  of  a  moral  Deity,  the 
tyrannies  of  despotism  and  conquest  or  force  are  at 
an  end. 

IV. 

1.  But  now  we  shall  the  better  study  the  action  of 
this  great  creative  idea  when  we  place  it  in  rela- 
tion to  the  notion  of  man.  This  must  correspond  to 
the  notion  of  God.  The  one  is  the  counterpart  and 
mirror  of  the  other.  Now  the  Mosaic  religion,  as  it 
was  the  first  that  had  the  idea  of  a  moral  Deity,  was 
also  the  first  that  had  the  notion  of  man  as  a  moral, 
free,  conscious  individual,  with  rights  no  man  could 
take  from  him,  and  with  duties  no  man  could  fulfil 
for  him.  The  full  significance  of  this,  especially  as 
regards  its  social  and  political  action,  will  become 
apparent  if  you  note  this— that  the  great  notion  in 
all  the  ancient  Empires  was,  the  king  or  the  priest 
owns  the  people.  The  idea  of  man  as  a  conscious, 
rational,  moral  individual,  of  worth  for  his  own  sake, 
of  equal  dignity  before  his  Maker,  did  not  exist  in 
antiquity  till  it  came  into  being  through  Israel.     Do 


120  Religion  in  History. 

you  think  I  mis-state  the  matter?  Let  us  see  the 
fact.  Did  you  ever  look  at  the  great  pyramids  of 
Egypt  and  ask,  why  or  how  they  came  to  be? 
Millions  of  nameless  men  died  to  create  for  two  or 
three  almost  unknown  kings  a  tomb.  Look  at  the 
largest: — one  hundred  thousand  men  are  said  to 
have  worked  by  forced  labour  every  day  at  its  build- 
ing, and  it  took  twenty  years  to  build.  A  hundred 
thousand  men  driven  by  force  through  twenty  years 
to  unpaid  labour,  and  all  to  build  a  tomb  for  a  king  I 
Imagine  every  able-bodied  man  in  a  city  as  large  as 
Manchester  or  Liverpool,  forced  for  twenty  years  to 
work  without  pay  for  the  vanity  of  one  man,  and  you 
have  a  single  illustration  of  the  value  of  man  and 
his  work  as  the  remoter  antiquity  understood  it.  Do 
not  let  this  surprise  you.  Take  some  of  the  hymns 
of  ancient  Egypt,  which  of  late  years  have  been  re- 
covered, and  you  will  find  the  king  praised  as  god, 
extolled  as  divine,  all  divine  qualities  being  attribut- 
ed to  him.  Pass  from  the  valley  of  the  Nile  to  the 
valley  of  the  Euphrates,  and  ask  what  do  you  find 
there?  The  king  is  the  master  of  men,  he  can  muster 
his  thousands  by  will,  by  will  he  can  throw  his  thou- 
sands awaj",  and  it  is  his  concern  if  the  men  are  lost; 
the  loss  is  his,  not  theirs.  No  man  has  worth,  save 
to  the  king  and  for  his  ends.  No  man  is  valued  as  a 
person,  or  as  a  man.  The  idea  of  manhood,  as  any- 
thing real  or  possible,  does  not  as  yet  exist.  Go  still 
further  east,  to  India,  and  what  do  you  find?  As  a 
man  acts  to  the  priest,  the  Brahman,  so  his  place  in 
this  life  and  the  life  to  come  is  determined.  What- 
ever maintains  the  purity  of  caste  is  right,  whatever 


Tlie  Old  Testament  in  Religion,  121 

interferes  with  it  is  wrong,  and  lite  is  everywhere 
under  a  shadow  because  without  the  dignifying 
presence  of  the  moral  ideal.  But  when  the  Mosaic 
state  came  into  being,  what  did  it  bring  with  it?  A 
new  notion  of  man,  a  higher  conception  of  manhood. 
It  had  no  king,  God  was  King,  every  man  of  the 
people  was  precious  in  God's  sight,  each  had  an  equal 
worth,  all  had  equal  duties  and  equal  rights.  The 
idea  of  the  rights  of  man  and  the  correlative  idea 
of  his  duties,  were  created  by  the  religion  that  gave 
the  moral  idea  of  God.  In  no  ancient  state  was 
man  more  dignified,  was  life  so  valued.  To  touch  it 
was  to  touch  what  God  made  and  protected.  The 
very  sovereign  was  good  only  as  he  did  God's  will, 
and  his  last  sin  was  to  oppress  the  people  he  had 
received  from  God. 

2.  But  we  have  not  only  to  consider  the  idea  of 
man,  we  have  to  see  man  built  into  a  state.  Now  the 
basis  of  the  state  is  a  moral  one.  And  it  is  moral 
because  it  is  the  will,  the  expressed  will  of  the  moral 
Deity.  God  is  to  be  honoured  as  the  One  God.  He 
is  to  be  revered.  Man  is  to  remain  pure,  to  be  no 
adulterer,  to  speak  the  truth,  not  to  covet,  not  to 
kill,  not  to  steal.  All  duty  laid  down  by  God  is  law 
to  be  fulfilled  by  man.  Now,  I  have  already  said 
that  the  gods  of  the  ancients  were,  as  a  rule,  unmoral 
or  immoral,  that  as  a  consequence  religion  was  no 
friend  to  morality,  was  often  most  lustful  and  impure. 
But  now,  note,  that  in  and  under  and  because  of 
Moses  came  the  idea  that  to  serve  God  you  must  do 
your  duty  by  man,  must  be  obedient  and  faithful  in 
the  simplest  daily  things.     Now,  I  do  not  intend  to 


12^  Ueligion  in  History. 

defend  the  Mosaic  law — which  is  here  taken  to  mean 
no  more  than  those  ten  Commandments  which  are 
the  heart  of  all  the  Levitical  legislation — as  a  perfect 
law  for  all  time,  or  to  say  that  it  contains  all  morality. 
It  was  impossible  that  the  earliest  form  of  the  Hebrew 
religion  could  be  as  perfect  as  the  latest,  but  it  had 
as  a  germ  all  the  capabilities  of  growth  and  expan- 
sion needed  for  ultimate  perfection.  And  this  I 
further  say,  that  from  this  moment  moral  life  at 
once  in  the  state  and  in  the  man  is  based  and 
built  on  this  great  ethical  conception  of  God,  and 
God's  will,  as  a  moral  will,  becomes  the  basis  of 
human  society. 

Now,  we  have  to  observe  a  further  consequence, 
the  state  became  God's.  This,  too,  was  a  new  idea. 
In  every  other  ancient  state,  in  Greece,  in  India, 
in  Assyria,  in  Egypt,  the  state  owned  the  gods. 
They  were  the  state's.  The  state  possessed  the 
religion,  and  the  men  who  belonged  to  it  must  be 
of  its  faith.  If  a  man  questioned  the  gods,  he 
questioned  the  law,  and  was  guilty  of  treason  in  its 
most  offensive  form,  and  so  the  state  put  him  to 
death.  To  question  the  law  of  the  state  in  matters 
of  religion  was  so  much  a  crime  in  the  eyes  of  the 
heathen  that  persecution  seemed  a  natural  and 
obvious  necessity.  It  was  indeed  the  coming  of 
heathen  ideas  into  the  Christian  religion  that  made 
freedom  of  thought  anywhere  in  any  Christian  land 
a  crime.  You  will  see  then  that  the  notion  of  the 
ancient  world  was  by  the  Hebrews  here  reversed; 
the  state  did  not  own  God,  He  owned  it,  founded  it, 
and  founded  it  in  order  that  His  will,  a  moral  will, 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  123 

might  be  done  within  it.  That  is  the  fundamental 
social  conception  of  the  most  ancient  Hebrew  legis- 
lation, and  it  is  therefore  moral  while  social,  and 
moral  and  social  because  religious — the  Moral  Deity 
is  the  basis  of  society,  and  He  proclaims,  defines, 
and  enforces  the  law  regulative  of  life,  both  individ- 
ual and  collective. 

V. 

1.  But  the  law  could  not  be  moral  without  becom- 
ing much  more,  and  so  it  had  to  become  social,  eco- 
nomical, and  religious  as  well.  And  this  in  the 
course  of  the  centuries  it  became,  progressively  more 
and  more.  Yet  the  influence  of  the  moral  centre 
and  basis  never  ceased  to  extend  to  the  circumfer- 
ence and  summit.  As  to  these  wider  aspects  I  can- 
not speak  in  detail,  but  will  simply  note  three  points. 
First,  of  the  law  in  relation  to  Nature.  There  never 
was  a  saner  law  than  the  Mosaic.  It  loved  Nature, 
could  not  bear  to  see  the  fields  impoverished,  and 
decreed  that  no  man  should  be  allowed  to  injure 
either  his  posterity,  or  his  neighbours,  or  the  land 
on  which  they  lived,  by  impoverishing  its  fields. 
Nor  could  it  bear  to  see  the  human  form  mutilated, 
and  so  it  declared  that  only  the  unblemished  was 
beautiful  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  fit  to  do  Him 
public  and  sacred  service.  It  did  not  Iotc  to  harass 
or  burden  the  dumb  creation;  the  ox  tliat  trod  out 
the  corn  was  not  to  be  muzzled.  The  young  tender 
tree  was  protected,  and  was  not  to  be  unduly  taxed 
to  yield  abundance.  The  law  was  thus  full  of  a  great 
sense  of  the  good  of  nature,  a  great  sense  of  the 


124  Religion  in  History, 

glory  within  humanity,  and  of  the  large  and  lovely 
harmony  without. 

Secondly,  the  law  in  relation  to  man.  There  never 
was  so  careful  a  law  about  what  we  call  sanitation. 
It  cared  for  the  cleanliness  of  the  body.  It  feared 
infection,  and  separated  those  with  infectious  dis- 
eases from  the  great  multitude,  declaring  them  un- 
clean. Its  laws  of  ceremonial  uncleanness  had  great 
health  in  them — a  real  human  sanity.  Then,  though 
it  knew  slavery,  as  all  the  ancient  world  did,  the 
slavery  it  knew  was  of  the  gentlest,  the  most  gener- 
ous kind.  Every  man  taken  as  a  slave  could,  in  the 
sabbatic  year,  regain  his  freedom,  go  forth  into  the 
world  a  free  man.  Its  laws,  too,  concerning  the 
wealth  of  man,  were  noble  laws.  They  made 
property  sacred,  yet  did  not  allow  its  accumulation 
in  a  few  hands,  or  in  one,  but  sought  to  secure  its 
fair  and  equal  distribution.  Every  Jubilee  year 
the  land  was  redistributed;  the  old  families  that 
had  lost  it  might  again  possess  their  inheritance. 
And  so  if  by  misfortune,  or  by  crime,  a  man  had 
lost  his  estate,  he  had  a  chance  given  to  him  to  re- 
deem himself  and  his  place  in  the  community,  to  go 
"back  into  his  old  and  better  order.  Capital,  also, 
was  carefully  guarded,  that  it  should  not  become  an 
immense  and  oppressive  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
rich,  to  make  them  extortionate  over  the  poor.  We 
may  indeed,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  affirm  that 
the  Jewish  law  is  the  justest  law  to  the  poor  yet 
framed,  to  the  man  that  toiled,  to  the  man  prepared 
honestly  by  sweat  of  brow  and  labour  of  hand  to  earn 
his  bread.     Let  us  do  it  justice.     I  ask  for  it  from 


TJie  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  125 

you  only  justice,  but  justice  I  do  ask;  for  that  is  only 
a  just  demand.  Where  the  idea  of  a  moral  God  and 
a  free,  responsible  man  came  in  and  held  possession 
of  the  people,  there,  applied  to  the  questions  of 
industry  and  economics,  emerged  a  law  that  secured, 
as  far  as  law  can  secure  such  things,  the  equitable 
distribution  of  wealth,  and  the  highest  degree  of 
individual  wellbeing. 

But,  thirdly,  we  have  to  note  a  characteristic 
peculiarity  in  the  laws  relating  to  God  and  His 
service.  Among  the  surrounding  states  of  antiquity 
the  Mosaic  state  stood  distinguished  for  one  thing, 
the  absence  of  human  sacrifice,  a  matter  most  signi- 
ficant as  to  the  character  of  God,  as  to  His  way  of 
educating  and  teaching  man.  Human  sacrifice  was 
one  of  the  commonest  and  most  horrible  rites  of  the 
ancient  religions.  And  it  was  one  of  the  hardest 
things  to  bring  the  Jewish  people  out  of  the 
common  and  coarser  into  the  rarer  and  kindlier 
service.  Remember  that  question  which  the  prophet 
represents  the  king  as  asking:  ''How  shall  I  come 
before  the  Lord,  and  bow  myself  before  the  most 
high  God?  Shall  I  give  the  fruit  of  my  body 
for  the  sin  of  my  soul?  "  That  was  a  common 
question  in  the  ancient  religions.  But  in  its  answer 
Israel  stood  alone  and  pre-eminent: — ''He  hath 
showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good.  And  what  doth 
the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  to  love 
mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?"  The 
answer  is  significant  alike  of  the  new  dignity  and 
worth  of  man,  and  of  the  new  and  noble  tenderness 
ill  the  character  of  his  God. 


i26  Religion  in  History. 

But  you  may  say,  ''See  how  many  of  the  laws 
are  imperfect  and  severe,  nay,  even  cruel.  Take,  for 
example,  the  law  against  witchcraft.  '  Thou  shalt 
not  suffer  a  witch  to  live.  '  Had  not  that  law  to  do 
with  the  burnings  for  witchcraft  in  the  sixteenth, 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  ?  And  how  can 
you  defend  the  religion  against  the  charge  of  burning 
people  for  an  impossible  crime?  "  Now  there  are 
here  two  "questions,  one  as  to  the  law,  and  another 
as  to  its  interpretation  or  application  in  later  history. 
''Thou  Shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live,"  must  be 
looked  at  through  the  eyes  of  that  time,  in  the  spirit 
of  a  historical  student,  asking  the  meaning  of  a 
religion,  and  what  witchcraft  signified  to  it.  It  did 
not  mean  an  old  woman  addicted  to  black  arts,  who 
burnt  before  the  fire  the  image  of  a  man  who  was 
thought  to  decay  as  the  image  melted.  It  meant  the 
presence  and  power  of  the  religions  lying  around. 
It  stood  in  necessary  alliance  with  them,  and  in 
necessary  antithesis  to  the  fundamental  idea  of  a 
moral  religion,  realized  in  a  moral  life.  And  it  was 
a  simple  necessity  if  the  religion  of  Israel  was  to 
remain  and  not  be  superseded  by  the  cruel  and 
lascivious  religion  of  Phoenicia,  that  the  witch  who 
was,  as  it  were,  the  very  prophet  and  priestess  of 
Phoenicia,  and  the  w^orst  elements  in  heathenism, 
should  not  be  suffered  to  live  in  Israel.  The  other 
question,  as  to  its  interpretation  and  application  two 
or  tliree  centuries  ago,  is  another  matter  altogether, 
and  for  it  the  men  of  that  time  are  alone  responsible. 
They  did  two  things — they  misunderstood  the  pur- 
port and  function  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  they  forgot 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  12T 

the  relation  in  which  it  stood  to  the  law  of  Christ. 
It  was  only  preparatory,  provisional,  intended  for  a 
time  long  past,  and  passing  with  the  time  for  which 
it  was  intended.  Any  man  who  scientifically  looks 
at  the  matter,  sees  that  the  law  of  Moses,  or  the 
ideal  of  the  Mosaic  state,  was  not  universal  and 
permanent,  intended  for  all  time.  Men  have  thought 
that  it  was,  as  perhaps  Calvin,  when  he  founded  his 
Theocracy  at  Geneva,  and  the  Puritans,  when  they 
founded  their  Church-State  over  in  New  England. 
The  mistakes  of  these  men  are  to  be  judged,  like 
all  other  mistakes  of  historical  interpretation,  as 
reflecting  on  the  men,  and  not  on  the  law  they 
misunderstood.  Then,  for  the  further  point,  come 
to  the  moment  when  Christ  declared  the  true  yet 
simple  relation  in  which  the  transitory  and  per- 
manent in  the  old  law  stood  to  Himself.  It  had 
been  said,  ^  ^  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth,  but  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye  resist  not  evil.  " 
Here  was  a  law  written  and  formulated  as  Mosaic, 
but  it  was  a  law  designed  and  fitted  only  for  an  im- 
perfect state,  intended,  therefore,  to  be  repealed  and 
cancelled  in  a  state  higher  and  more  perfect.  And 
this  single  is  an  illustrative  case.  Do  not  judge  a 
provisional  as  if  it  were  a  permanent  law,  a  law  for 
a  people  like  the  Hebrews  as  if  it  had  been  the  ulti- 
mate code  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  moral 
elements  in  Moses  abide,  the  ceremonial  and  occa- 
sional have  passed  and  perished. 

2.  We  have  as  yet  discussed  but  a  very  small  part 
of  a  very  great  subject;  and  time  will  allow  us  to 
discuss  no  more.     All  that  has  been  attempted  has 


128  Religion  in  History, 

been  to  bring  out  the  distinctive  Hebrew  conception 

of  God  as  the  source  and  basis  of  the  distinctive 

Hebrew  state.      We  must  end;  yet  I  feel  as  if  I  had 

not  brought  you  even  within  sight  of  the  boundless 

riches   of  the  marvellous  book  which  we   call   the 

Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.     Here,  indeed,  one 

feels  the  pathos  of  standing  on  the  narrow  shore,  and 

looking  over  the  boundless,  unexplored,  mysterious 

ocean.      Beside  us  a  prosaic  disputant  may  stand 

and  say,  '^What  see  you  but  a  barren  expanse  of 

water,  vexed  by  angry  winds?  "    But  let  our  answer 

be:  ^'  Man,  be  silent;  we  are  looking  over  the  mighty 

pathway  of  the  peoples,  and  we  see  it  thronged  with 

argosies  hastening  to  distribute  their  unsearchable 

wealth  among  all  kindreds  of  the  world.  "     It  is  not 

possible    to   describe  this  wealth,  but  let  me  in  a 

hurried  sentence  or  two  indicate  its  kind  and  extent. 

Well,  then,  no  literature  of  antiquity  is  possessed 

with  so  deep  a  love  of  the  poor,  speaks  so  strong  and 

generous  words   concerning  them,    surrounds  them 

with  so  much  dignity  and  so  many  rights  as  this 

Old  Testament.      I  know  what   I    say,  and   I  say 

what  no  man  who  knows  antiquity  can  contradict. 

Without  the   Bible  labour   would    be   without    its 

noblest  vindicator,  without  the  one  ancient  witness 

that  testified  in  behalf  of  its  honour  and  its  claims. 

There  is  no  book  that  so  denounces  the  king  who 

dares  to  oppress,  or  the  priest  who  dares  to  deceive 

the  poor,  that  so  praises  the  man  who  does  justice 

and  loves  mercy.     To  help  the  poor  is  to  please 

God,  to  wrong  them  is  to  provoke  His  wrath.     The 

ideal  king  is  one  who  ^ '  Shall  govern  thy  people  with 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  129 

righteousness,  and  thy  poor  with  judgment."  ^'He 
shall  save  the  children  of  the  needy,  and  shall  break 
in  pieces  the  oppressor. "  ^  ^  He  shall  deliver  the  poor, 
and  him  that  hath  no  helper. "  ''He  shall  redeem 
their  soul  from  deceit  and  violence,  and  precious 
shall  their  blood  be  in  his  sight."  Connected  here- 
with is  its  love  of  the  weak  and  defenceless,  the  way 
it  seeks  to  honour  and  guard  the  woman  and  child. 
Do  you  know  how  Roman  law  dealt  with  the  father? 
It  invested  him  within  his  family  with  absolute  power, 
over  against  him  the  wife  and  child  could  not  be 
said  to  possess  any  rights;  and  the  Roman  law  is 
the  finest  blossom  of  the  Roman  spirit,  and  in  the 
field  of  civil  legislation  of  all  antiquity.  But  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  great  preachers  who  speak  in  the 
name  of  God  will  allow  no  such  absolute  power  to 
man;  not  right,  but  duty  is  in  proportion  to  strength; 
the  greater  the  weakness,  the  greater  the  claim  on 
the  resourceful  and  the  strong.  ' '  Children  are  an 
heritage  of  the  Lord,"  to  be  dealt  with  as  riches 
held  in  trust  for  Him.  The  man  he  most  approves 
is  the  one  who  ''judges  the  fatherless  and  pleads  for 
the  widow."  Then  there  is  no  book  so  full  of  the 
love  of  honesty,  the  praise  of  justice  between  man 
and  man.  It  hates  "the  false  balance,"  the  lying 
tongue,  the  over-reaching  spirit.  It  commends  alike 
the  generous  master  and  the  faithful  servant.  In  a 
word,  its  ideal  of  life — industrial,  domestic,  civil, 
commercial — is  the  highest,  purest,  sublimest,  known 
to  the  ancient  world,  for  it  is  an  ideal  that  struggles 
towards  the  creation  of  righteousness  in  all  persons 
and  in  all  relations. 


130  Religion  in  History. 

But  why  attempt  to  sketch  in  hasty  words  the 
meaning  and  wealth  of  this  marvellous  literature? 
Let  me  simply  urge  you  to  read  it  anew,  with  open 
eye  and  clear  vision.^  Look  at  its  proverbs,  so  laden 
with  moral  wisdom,  so  possessed  with  the  belief  that 
true  goodness  is  best  prudence,  and  obedience  to  God 
the  condition  of  all  good.  Look  at  its  Psalms;  what 
wonderful  poetry  is  there !  It  has  no  parallel  or  peer. 
For  thousands  of  years  these  Psalms  have  been  sung, 
and  men  sing  them  still,  feeling  as  if  they  were  the 
most  modern,  the  most  living  of  all  religious  songs. 
They  have  been  translated  out  of  their  primitive 
Hebrew  speech  into  almost  all  our  human  tongues, 
and  have  become,  as  it  were,  the  universal  language 
in  which  man  can  tell  his  joy  or  sorrow,  his  contrition 
or  exultation,  to  God.  Then,  look  at  its  attitude  to 
the  profoundest  of  all  the  problems  that  can  vex  the 
human  spirit,  the  problem  of  the  good  man  suffering 
in  an  evil  world!  That  was  the  problem  of  Job  and 
the  second  part  of  Isaiah;  in  the  one  the  perfect  man 
is  the  man  who  suffers  most,  in  the  other  the  servant 
of  God,  his  anointed,  in  whom  his  soul  delighted,  is 
the  Man  of  Sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief.  The 
perfect  man  and  servant  suffers  that  he  may  redeem; 
his  holiness  and  our  sin  are  the  twin  causes  of  his 
sorrow,  but  as  the  sorrow  of  the  holy  it  can  save  the 
man  who  has  sinned.  His  suffering  is  the  redemption 
of  his  kind.  Then,  think,  with  all  its  sense  of  evil 
and  sorrow  it  never  lost  hope,  but  found  in  the 
presence  of  wrong  only  a  deeper  need  for  faith  in  a 
righteous  God,  new  ground  for  confidence  in  a  reign 
that  would  right  all.     And  so  we  sec  those  marvellous 


The  Old  Testament  in  Religion.  131 

prophets,  turning  from  a  time  of  impotence  and  evil, 
when  the  little  handful  of  their  people,  beset,  harassed, 
hunted,  broken,  could  not  realize  their  own  imperfect 
vision  of  the  prophetic  ideal,  look  forward  and  anti- 
cipate the  true  golden  age  when  peace  and  joy  among 
nations,  wealth  and  perfect  manhood  among  men, 
should  everywhere  prevail.  The  fulfilment  of  their 
vision  tarries,  but  their  God  reigns,  and  it  will  surely 
come! 


LECTURE  III. 

THE  PLACE  AND  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
IN  RELIGION. 

The  fundamental  idea  of  the  previous  lecture  was 
this — The  religion  of  Israel  was  an  altogether  new 
order  of  religion,  and  it  was  this  by  virtue  of  its 
conception  or  thought  of  God  and  His  law.  By 
means  of  these  it  laid  the  basis  for  a  new  notion  of 
man,  a  new  type  of  society,  a  new  structure  or  order  of 
humanity.  So  long  as  men  believe  in  a  multitude  of 
gods,  they  will  never  believe  in  the  unity  of  man;  so 
long  as  they  believe  in  a  deity  without  moral  character, 
they  will  never  live  under  what  they  feel  to  be  a 
common  moral  law.  Might  will  be  right.  Their 
world  will  be  the  strong  man's  world,  where  the 
weakest  goes  to  the  wall,  and  the  poor,  unpitied,  live 
or  die  to  please  the  rich. 


1.  Now,  the  change  that  has  made  our  idea  of  man 
and  society  so  unlike  the  ancient,  is  a  change  that 
begins  with  the  notion  of  God  and  His  law  that  came 
through  Moses.     That  is  a  simple  matter  of  historic 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  133 

fact  and  certainty.  No  code  of  antiquity  possessed, 
in  anything  like  the  same  degree,  so  exalted  a  notion 
of  man,  of  the  rights  of  man,  of  the  dignity  of  man's 
labour,  of  his  duties,  of  his  moral  worth  and  relations, 
of  his  claim  to  reap  and  to  possess  the  harvest  of 
profit,  or  of  plenty,  his  own  hands  had  sowed.  It 
was  not  the  priest's,  or  the  king's  law,  it  was  God's. 
In  that  lay  the  secret  of  its  power,  the  source  of  the 
great  dignity  it  gave  to  man.  Make  the  law  the 
king's  or  the  priest's,  make  king  or  priest  own  the 
people,  and  you  have  as  an  inevitable  result  despotism, 
oppression,  wrong,  sacrifice  of  the  weak  to  the  strong. 
Make  the  law  and  the  people  God's,  and  you  have  as 
an  inevitable  result,  the  equality  of  all  men  before 
God,  and,  once  that  is  clearly  and  fully  understood, 
the  equal  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of  all  men. 
The  law  which  came  through  Moses  was,  to  the 
people  as  a  whole,  the  most  generous,  the  most 
righteous  law  of  antiquity,  reposing  as  it  did  on  the 
humanest  of  all  the  ancient  conceptions  of  God. 

Now,  I  wish  to  restate  and  re-emphasize  this 
central  and  fundamental  idea,  or  principle.  What- 
ever men  may  say,  it  is  incontestable,  a  simple  fact 
which  history  has  verified.  You  will  never  build  a 
society  or  a  state,  ordered,  free,  righteous,  unless 
you  build  it  on  a  great  moral  belief,  and  the  greatest 
of  all  moral  beliefs  is  the  belief  in  a  moral  Deity; 
for  that  makes  the  source,  the  laws,  the  method,  the 
course,  the  end  of  life,  all  alike  moral.  A  society 
built  up  from  the  foundation  consistently  according 
to  that  notion,  would  be  a  perfect  society,  but  to  a 
perfect  society  you  need  not  only  a  great  theoretic 


134  Religion  in  History. 

principle,  you  need  perfect  persons,  equal  in  their 
perfection  to  the  theoretic  belief  they  hold.     But  the 
function  of  great  beliefs  is  not  to  find  perfect  men, 
but  to  make  them,  to  take  the  poor  material  it  gets, 
and  out  of  it  to  build  up  nobler  characters  and  nobler 
men.     To  take  the  individual,  the  isolated  men  and 
acts  of  a  given  race,  or  a  given  people,  and  make  the 
system  bear  the  blame  of  their  imperfections,  is  to 
act,  perhaps,  in  the  spirit  of  controversy,  but  not  in 
the  spirit  of  science,  which  seeks  to  discover  the 
action,  through  persons  or  peoples,  of  great  beliefs  on 
man,  and  in  this  action  to  see  their  character  and 
quality  revealed.     Now  I  am  able  to  say,  as  another 
simple   and    incontrovertible    fact,    of   all   ancient 
literatures,  of  all  ancient  writings  possessed  by  man, 
the  writings  with  the  largest  sense  of  humanity,  the 
greatest  sense  of  the  rights  of  the  individual,  the 
noblest  conception   of  labour   and  its  reward,   of 
society  and  its  functions,  are  the  writings  of  the 
Hebrews.     Nowhere   is   the  king  so  reproved,  no- 
where is  the  priest  so  reproached,  when  either  dares 
to  forget  his  supreme  obedience  to  God,  or  his  su- 
preme duty  to  man.     If  either  dares  so  to  forget, 
the  prophet  stands  forward,  and  says,  '^  Bring  no 
more  vain  oblations:    incense  is  abomination  unto 
God;    your  new  moons  and  your  appointed  feasts 
His  soul  hateth.     Wash  you,  make  you  clean;  put 
away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  His  eyes; 
cease  to  do  evil;    learn  to  do  well;    seek  judgment, 
relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for 
the  widow." 

Now  let  me   ask  you  as  open-minded    men    to 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  135 

consider  this  simple  question;  since  every  ancient 
empire,  as  the  pyramids  of  Egypt  and  the  records  of 
Babylonia  show  us,  despised  the  common  people, 
forced  them  to  labour  as  if  they  had  no  claim  or 
right  to  their  own  strength  and  the  profits  of  their 
own  skill,  and  threw  away  their  lives  as  if  they  had 
no  personal  worth — Why  is  it  otherwise  with  us? 
Modern  Oriental  empires,  where  the  ancient  basis  of 
society  still  in  a  measure  survives,  have  the  old 
contempt  of  man  and  life.  China  will  see  a  thousand 
men  perish  with  less  concern  than  we  would  see  a 
score.  Before  we  went  to  India  life  was  squandered 
as  if  it  were  a  worthless  thing;  our  care  for  life  in 
India  has  within  this  century  caused  so  extraordinary 
an  increase  of  the  population  as  to  bring  upon  us  the 
gravest  of  all  economical  questions — How  deal  with 
a  people  whose  increase  threatens  to  outrun  the 
means  of  subsistence?  Why,  then,  do  we  so  value 
life?  Why  do  we  so  value  man  that  we  seek  to 
secure  to  every  one  the  reward  of  his  own  labour? 
Why  do  we  so  hate  the  pestilence  or  the  famine,  the 
war  or  the  accident,  which  comes  to  destroy  noble 
and  valued  being?  History  supplies  the  answer,  the 
facts  which  cannot  be  disputed,  and  they  say  that 
the  right  to  your  own  labour,  to  your  own  manhood, 
to  your  very  personal  freedom,  in  a  word,  the  ideas 
that  make  men  of  you,  run  back  into  the  belief  in 
God  and  God's  law  that  came  through  Moses. 

Let  us  abide  by  the  facts;  do  not  let  any  man 
divert  you  from  them  and  what  they  teach.  Do  not 
let  a  sneer  at  a  Hebrew  patriarch  or  king  by  a  man 
too  ill-informed  and  prejudiced  to  understand  him. 


136  Religion  in  History. 

and  the  times  in  which  he  lived,  lead  you  away  from 
the  real  point  at  issue — Why  is  man  and  his  labour, 
why  are  the  common  people  and  their  rights,  so 
differently  esteemed  and  valued  now  from  what  they 
were  in  the  ancient  world?  And  comparative  science, 
working  with  the  historical  material,  finds  only  one 
answer — these  ideas  rose  in  connection  with  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel,  and  have  their  primary  source  and 
basis  in  the  great  beliefs  it  created  and  supplied.  Yet 
it  was  only  provisional,  imperfect,  a  mere  prophecy 
of  a  more  perfect  method,  of  a  nobler  order  and  a 
larger  faith.  Without  the  preparatory,  the  final  and 
perfect  could  not  have  been :  without  the  perfect,  the 
preparatory  had  been  but  a  promise,  a  blossom  that 
had  never  rounded  and  ripened  into  fruit. 

2.  We  come  now,  then,  to  the  New  Testament  and 
its  significance  for  our  question.  In  dealing  with  it 
we  must  not  change  our  standpoint  or  our  method. 
We  must  apply  the  same  principles;  we  must  look 
at  all  matters  under  the  same  lights  as  heretofore. 
Now,  while  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  aimed 
at  creating  a  state  or  organizing  a  people  on  the 
basis  of  the  belief  in  the  one  personal  and  moral 
Deity,  and  of  obedience  to  His  law,  we  may  describe 
the  religion  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  method  for 
creating  and  constituting  a  new  humanity,  and  this 
new  mankind  it  seeks  to  create  and  constitute  by  its 
idea  of  God,  and  what  that  idea  contains  and  makes 
manifest.  It  is  not,  observe,  a  religion  of  anxious 
individualism,  concerned  about  nothing  except  saving 
isolated  souls;  careful  only  to  make  men  contented  in 
life,  peaceful  in  death,  and  happy  in  eternity.     It  may 


The  Neiv  Testament  in  Religion,  137 

accomplish  these,  but  these  are  only  means,  not  ends. 
In  its  essence  it  is  a  mighty  plan,  splendid  in  its 
design  and  in  its  efficiency,  for  the  construction,  from 
the  base  upwards,  of  a  humanity  or  a  society  that 
shall,  in  all  its  parts,  through  all  its  members,  in  all 
its  relations,  express  or  articulate  the  righteous  will 
of  God.  It  is  thus  an  ideal  for  the  whole  of  humanity, 
and  a  great  method  for  its  realization.  It  is  at  this 
point  that  it  stands  at  once  related  to  the  religion 
of  Israel  and  distinguished  from  it;  what  Israel 
tried  to  do  for  a  people,  the  New  Testament  came  to 
do  for  mankind.  What  existed  as  particular  and 
provisional  in  the  old,  exists  as  general  and  perma- 
nent in  the  new. 

Here,  again,  the  great  constitutive  factor,  chang- 
ing and  regulating  the  individual,  building  up  and 
organizing  the  society,  is  the  conception  of  God. 
And  the  place  He  occupies,  as  well  as  the  way 
in  which  He  is  conceived,  makes  a  generic  differ- 
ence between  the  Christian  and  other  religions. 
Yarro,  an  old  and  most  learned  Roman,  said,  ' '  In 
order  that  gods  may  be  established,  states  must 
first  exist."  That  was  the  pagan  idea,  the  state 
owned  the  god,  and  the  god  had  no  power  or 
authority  outside  its  own  state.  In  perfect  harmony 
with  this  notion  the  emperor  or  king  was  deified  in 
a  way  that  greatly  astonishes  the  men  of  to-day. 
Suppose  the  people  of  England  were  to  call  their 
Queen  goddess;  or  suppose  the  people  of  Russia, 
dark  and  benighted  as  they  may  seem,  were  to  call 
a  man,  whose  moral  character  was  like  the  late 
Emperor's,  god,  what  would  you   think  of  them? 


138  Religion  in  History, 

Yet  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  the  high 
bloom-time  of  the  Roman  empire,  men  like  Nero, 
who  could  fiddle  while  Rome  burned;  men  like 
Caligula,  who  drank,  feasted,  and  committed  crime 
of  the  worst  imaginable  sorts,  were  called  divine, 
and  they  received  honour  and  worship  as  gods. 
Yet,  strange  as  all  this  may  seem,  it  was  logical, 
it  grew  out  of  the  idea  that  the  state  was  greater 
than  the  religion,  and  established  the  gods;  they 
did  not  own  but  were  owned  by  the  state,  it  was 
their  factor,  they  were  not  its.  And  as  the  state 
was  thus  more  divine  and  comprehensive  than  the 
religion,  the  person  who  symbolized  its  authority, 
its  unity,  and  being,  could  be  fitly  termed  divus 
or  even  deus.  Now  why  would  the  use  of  the  term 
goddess  to  queen  or  god  to  emperor  seem  to  us 
so  profane?  Is  it  not  because  there  has  passed  into 
our  blood,  into  the  very  marrow,  as  it  were,  of  our 
spirit  and  mind,  a  conception  of  deity  that  makes 
these  old  conceptions  unutterably  degrading?  But 
does  not  this  very  elevation  of  our  conception  of 
the  divine  measure  the  influence  of  Christianity? 
It  has  so  exalted  every  man's  idea  of  God  as  to 
make  the  ancient  idea  abhorrent  where  it  is  not 
unintelligible. 

II. 

1.  Now  if  we  are  to  understand  the  significance  of 
the  New  Testament  for  our  discussion,  we  must  come 
to  it  with  open  spirit,  and  look  at  its  idea  of  religion 
as  embodied  in  its  great  Personality.  In  other  words, 
we  must  seek  to  understand  its  idea  through  Christ. 


The  Neiv  Testament  in  Religion.  139 

Now  His  life  was  one  of  very  remarkable  simplicity, 
and  one  of  still  more  remarkable  significance.  It  was 
altogether,  from  the  religious  point  of  view,  unlike  the 
ideal  that  had  become  traditional  in  Israel.  For 
religions  may  grow,  but  they  may  also  decay,  and 
the  distance  between  the  vision  and  thought  of  an 
Isaiah,  and  the  ideal  and  embodiment  of  a  priest  or 
a  scribe  or  a  pharisee  in  the  day  of  Christ  is  almost 
immeasurable.  The  traditional  ideal  in  Christ's  day, 
the  period  of  decadence,  was  twofold,  there  was  the 
priest's,  and  there  was  the  scribe's.  The  priest's  idea 
was — the  temple,  the  worship,  the  priesthood  are  the 
religion.  God  dwells  in  the  temple;  He  is  ap- 
proached through  His  priesthood.  He  is  appeased  by 
their  sacrifices,  and  the  most  pious  man  is  the  man 
who  most  often  visits  the  temple,  uses  the  priesthood, 
offers  the  costliest  and  greatest  oblations.  The  idea 
of  the  scribe  was  different,  yet  akin.  It  was  an 
ideal  of  forms,  full  of  fasts  and  holy  days,  formulas 
and  prayers,  positions  and  phylacteries,  reading  of 
Scriptures  and  general  performance  of  things  by 
rule.  In  short,  it  was  men  living  by  rote,  accord- 
ing to  the  fashion  of  the  fathers  or  the  times.  The 
priests  said,  ''No  man  can  please  God,  unless  he 
worships  in  a  consecrated  place,  employs  authorized 
persons,  uses  the  proper  and  catholic  means."  The 
scribe  said,  ''No  man  can  worship  God,  unless  he 
stands  by  tradition  and  follows  what  it  prescribes. " 
Worthy  men  they  were,  no  doubt,  honest  after  their 
lights,  scrupulous,  obedient  to  every  jot  and  tittle  of 
the  law,  forgetful  only  of  one  thing — that  the  law 
of  God  was  infinitely  greater  than  their  thoughts. 


140  Religion  in  History, 

Their  ideals,  I  have  said,  were  akin,  and  their 
kinship  stands  expressed  here: — they  made  scrupu- 
lous men,  men  of  most  rigid  conscientiousness,  who 
would  have  gone  to  prison  or  the  stake  for  a  rite 
or  a  privilege,  but  they  never  yet  made  magnani- 
mous men,  who  would  have  died  for  humanity. 

These,  then,  were  the  traditional  ideals,  religion  as 
materialized  and  depraved  by  priest  and  scribe.  Now 
Christ's  ideal  was  essentially  different.  To  them  He 
was  utterly  unintelligible,  a  person  not  to  be  under- 
stood. He  lived  away  in  Galilee,  remote  from  the 
city  of  the  religion,  and  so  at  first  came  but  seldom 
into  conflict  with  the  priests.  They  could  not  under- 
stand a  person  pre-eminent  in  religion,  who  would 
not,  and  did  not,  frequent  the  temple  according  to 
rule  and  routine  and  season,  and  use  the  sacrifices. 
With  the  scribes,  again,  He  was  in  ceaseless  collision 
about  their  weightiest  matters  of  the  law,  their 
solemn  days,  their  fasts,  their  feasts,  their  periods 
of  prayer,  their  tithing  mint,  anise,  and  cummin, 
about  the  formal  ways,  all  so  little,  yet  all  so  bur- 
densome, in  which  they  thought  to  do  religious 
work.  When  He  went  through  the  fields  on  the 
Sabbath,  and  His  disciples  plucked  the  ears  of  corn, 
they  thought  and  spoke  as  if  He  had  broken  the 
whole  law  of  God;  and  when  He  opposed  to  their 
'^Thus  saith  the  fathers,  or  thus  saith  tradition," 
His  own  authority  as  Son  of  Man  and  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  they  only  thought  Him  guilty  of  the  deeper 
profanity  and  even  the  worst  blasphemy.  He  was 
too  elevated  to  be  understood  of  them,  and  so  was 
miunderstood  in  the  gravest  degree,    and  to  the 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion,  141 

most  disastrous  results.     Not  to  fulfil  their  ideal  was 
to  be  worthy  of  the  cross. 

2.  But  while  His  ideal  stood  in  opposition  to 
theirs,  see  how  noble  it  looks  by  the  contrast.  He 
was  the  Son  of  Man  and  the  Son  of  God,  and  He 
seemed  to  lie  as  it  were  embosomed  in  the  Father's 
arms,  feeling  as  if  round  His  path  and  about  His 
soul,  in  darkest  hour,  in  supremest  moment,  the  di- 
vine hands  watched  to  guide  and  to  bless.  He  felt 
at  all  times  at  home  with  God;  He  lived  in  God,  God 
lived  in  Him;  men  felt  in  His  presence  as  in  the 
presence  of  the  Father,  because  in  the  presence  of 
the  only  begotten  Son.  And,  note,  when  He  became 
religiously  active,  what  He  did,  and  where  He  was 
found.  Not  in  the  temple,  but  in  the  highway, 
where  disease  was  to  be  cured;  in  the  home  where 
wisdom  was  to  be  taught;  on  the  sea,  and  by  the 
shore,  where  men  were  prepared  to  listen;  at  the 
receipt  of  custom,  or  in  the  haunts  of  the  outcast, 
where  men  were  waiting  to  be  saved;  there,  where 
He  could  best  bring  to  lost  men  the  great  message 
of  life,  there  was  He  found.  And,  high  though  He 
seemed.  He  gave  to  no  man  the  sense  that  He  con- 
descended; great  though  His  acts  were,  His  conde- 
scension was  never  conscious.  What  He  did  was 
through  the  gracious  and  sweet  compulsion  of  a  true 
and  holy  love.  What  God  is  among  His  worlds, 
Christ  was  among  men.  He  was  the  minister  of 
God  for  good  to  man,  come  to  give  His  life  a  ransom 
for  many.  He  was  the  great  Helper  of  the  forlorn, 
the  Saviour  who  seized  and  uplifted  the  lowly,  and 
carried  on  His  own  weary  shoulders  the  burden  of 


142  Religion  in  History. 

guilt  that  crushed  men  to  the  earth.  And  what 
feeling  did  He  give  them?  A  new  strange  feeling, 
making  the  men  who  were  guilty  feel  a  passion  for 
good;  He  changed  the  sense  of  sin  in  the  outcast 
into  the  sense  of  sonship,  the  being  beloved  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  He  loved  love  into  being,  and 
commanded  by  the  love  He  begot.  And  so  the  ideal 
of  religion  He  realized  was  altogether  new;  it 
needed  for  its  being  no  priest,  no  scribe,  no  temple, 
save  the  temple  of  a  pure  and  true  spirit  and  the 
presence  of  a  loving  God,  no  order  consecrated  and 
set  apart  to  sacerdotal  functions  and  ceremonious 
duties,  but  only  the  consecrated  spirit  of  the  child 
face  to  face  with  the  Father.  Where  love  is,  the  in- 
trusion of  a  priest  is  an  impertinence,  a  dark  shade 
that  sheds  coldness  into  the  spirit.  And  where  would 
it  have  been  so  impertinent  as  on  the  heart  and  in 
the  Spirit  of  Him  who,  as  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of 
God,  sorrowed  in  Gethsemane,  and  died  on  the 
cross? 

3.  As  His  religion  was  in  deed,  so  in  word. 
What  He  lived  He  taught.  What  He  taught  He 
lived.  Many  remarkable  elements  about  that  teach- 
ing might  here  be  summarized  and  described, 
strange,  remarkable  elements,  too.  Here  is  the 
Founder  of  a  religion.  Then  what  does  He  do?  In 
the  life  He  lives  He  never  does  a  priestly  act,  or 
gives  himself  a  priestly  name,  never  assumes  to- 
wards man  the  attitude,  or  manifests  the  temper,  or 
falls  into  the  tone  of  the  conventional  priest.  More, 
He  founds  His  society,  and  He  does  not  name  any  man 
He  calls  to  office  within  it  priest,  appoints  no  man  to 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  143 

do  any  priestly  act,  institutes  no  official  priesthood, 
simply  and  purely  makes  them   apostles,  or  disci- 
ples, or  prophets,  men  who  learned,  and  men  who 
taught,    or  who  learned  that  they   might    teach. 
When  He  wishes  to  impress  great  duties  upon  men, 
how  does  He  do  it?    By  parable.     And  when  He 
uses  the  parable  to  enforce  the  highest  duty  man 
owes  to  man,  where  does  He  get  His  example.  His 
impersonation  of   love?    In    the    priest    and    the 
Levite?    Nay,  in  the  man  they  held  to  be  unclean 
and  an  outcast,  the  Samaritan.     When  He  wishes  to 
express  duty  to  God,  the  true  idea  of  prayer,  where 
does  He  get  His  type?    Not  from  the  man  who  has 
his  formula  and  his  book,  his  regular  fasts  and  his 
legal  tithes,  but  in  the  publican,  who  prays  out  oi 
his  stricken  conscience,  '■ '  God  be  merciful  to  me,  a 
sinner."     And  here  the  Pharisee,  the  man  of  forms, 
stands  in  the  background  to  make  the  picture  more 
distinct.     And  "when  He  wishes  to  find  the  qualities 
He  most  praises,  where  does  He  find  them?    Not  in 
the  old  conventional  ideal,  but  in  the  pure  in  heart, 
the  peacemaker,  the  lover  of  righteousness,  the  suf- 
ferer, the  man  that  mourns.     They  are  the  blessed, 
and  if  He  wishes  to  describe  the  supreme  law  of 
God,  He  finds   it  in  two  things,  love  to  God  in 
heaven,  love  to  man  on  earth.     On  these  hang  all 
the  law  and  the  prophets.     Nay,  more.  He  so  com- 
bines these,  as  to  make  each  involve  the  other,  as  if 
He  meant  to  say — where  perfect  love  is  to  God, 
there  will  perfect  love  be  to  man,  and  where  love  to 
man,  there  all  the  duties  God  requires  will  be  ful- 
filled. 


144  Religion  in  History. 

But  observe;  the  maxims,  ethical  and  moral,  do 
not  stand  alone.  They  are  part  of  a  vast  and  im- 
mense system.  They  are  built  on  a  great  foundation. 
They  rise  out  of  the  conception  of  God,  and  His 
relation  to  man.  Then,  note.  He  does  not  mean  the 
people  He  calls  to  remain  individuals,  shut  ofl*  from 
each  other;  He  associates  them  in  a  great  kingdom. 
That  kingdom  is  called  of  heaven:  which  means,  it 
is  not  like  the  kingdoms  of  earth,  created  by  physical 
power,  planted  by  passion  or  pride — that  were 
despotism;  but  it  came  from  above  down  into  man, 
and  must  be  received  freely  to  be  received  at  all. 
Then  He  says,  it  is  a  kingdom  of  God.  That  means, 
it  does  not  come  from  the  act  of  might  or  tyranny 
or  deception,  the  ambition  of  some  great  man,  plant- 
ed on  the  throne  of  empire;  it  was  God's,  meant  to 
be  realized  in  conscience,  to  show  the  authority  of 
God  over  the  man.  The  people  drawn  into  that 
kingdom,  are  drawn  into  it  by  the  truth,  that  is,  its 
citizens  are  obedient  to  the  truth  by  belief  of  the 
truth.  The  men  that  compose  it  are  men  that  must 
not  seek  to  extend  it  by  sword  or  persecution,  by 
civil  law  or  military  power.  It  is  a  kingdom  of  the 
truth,  standing,  extending,  reigning,  only  through 
the  truth  and  the  agencies  it  employs.  Within  that 
kingdom,  which  has  no  visible  form  and  can  know  no 
limits  of  time  and  place,  the  faithful  and  holy  men  of 
all  ages  and  races  are  gathered,  and,  all  unconscious- 
ly to  themselves,  are  engaged  in  a  common  labour, 
working  together  with  God  through  His  Son  in 
building  up  a  new  humanity,  where,  instead  of  the 
old  despotism  of  force,  the  new  force  of  divine  love 


The  Neiv  Testament  in  Religion.  145 

shall  reign  supreme.  That  kingdom  is  an  eternal 
ideal  ever  in  process  of  realization,  never  to  be  per- 
fectly realized.  Yet  it  is  all  the  mightier  because  it 
is  so  ideal,  because  it  means  that  our  most  perfect 
state  is  but  the  shadow  of  the  most  perfect  possible. 
In  the  mind  of  God  there  lies  a  pattern  according  to 
which  the  new  creation  is  made,  and  that  pattern  is 
the  kingdom  which  Jesus  instituted,  and  which  His 
people  constitute.  Within  it  truth  reigns,  law  rules, 
and  obedience  is  realized.  It  has  come,  yet  it  is 
only  coming;  when  a  man  has  entered  it,  he  is  a 
citizen  of  God's  city.  Once  it  is  completely  realized 
on  earth,  the  will  of  God  will  be  done  here  as  in 
heaven. 

III. 

But  hitherto  we  have  been  concerned  only  with 
the  personal  religion  and  ideal  of  Jesus:  yet  these 
implied  and  reposed  on  certain  great  truths;  were, 
indeed,  just  their  articulation  or  expression  in  the 
region  of  reality  and  life.  Now  we  must  descend  to 
these  truths  themselves;  it  is  only  through  them 
that  we  can  understand  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ.  I  am  not  going  to  ask  you  to  discuss  the 
high  theological  doctrine  of  the  Godhead,  but  only 
to  consider  this — a  person  and  work  like  Christ's  is 
a  superstructure,  cannot  stand  on  nothing,  can  be 
there  and  abide  only  provided  it  be  built  on  a  founda- 
tion of  reality  and  truth.  Now  it  is  not  possible 
either  to  state  or  discuss  what  we  may  call  these 
sub-structural  truths;  but  I  wish  you  to  look  at 
those  aspects  of  them  that  bear  on  the  idea  of 


146  Beligion  in  History, 

religion,  and  those  questions  concerning  its  action  in 
history  that  are  meanwhile  before  us.  The  analysis 
and  presentation  of  Christ's  personal  ideal  of  reli- 
gion has  prepared  us  for  this  new  discussion. 

1.  We  shall  best  begin  by  returning  to  our  funda- 
mental principle;  the  idea  of  the  divine  is  the  deter- 
minative idea.  A  religion  always  is  as  its  deity  is,  or, 
in  other  words,  a  man  is  made  by  his  thought  of 
God  or  what  stands  in  its  place.  There  is  no  surer 
measure  of  a  people's  progress  than  its  successive 
conceptions  of  the  Being  it  worships.  The  deities 
of  a  rude  age  become  little  better  that  the  devils  of 
an  age  more  refined.  The  evil  power  the  savage 
propitiates,  the  sage  despises  or  disbelieves.  If, 
therefore,  a  religion  stands  rooted  in  a  depraved  or 
narrow  notion  of  God,  it  can  never  become  or  con- 
tinue to  be  the  religion  of  a  civilized  and  progres- 
sive people.  The  gods  the  Homeric  Greeks  believed 
in  were  abhorrent  to  the  pious  men  of  the  Socratic 
schools,  to  the  exalted  mind  of  Xenophanes,  to  the 
devout  spirit  of  Plato,  and  the  subtle  intellect  of 
Aristotle.  Yet  their  ideas  are  to  us  hardly  more 
real  than  the  Homeric.  The  destiny  of  ^schylos, 
inevitable,  merciless,  moving  resistless  to  punish  un- 
conscious as  well  as  conscious  sin,  is  a  dread  power 
from  which  the  heart  of  the  world  shrinks,  a  power 
it  could  never  in  its  soul  worship,  but  only  so  soon 
as  it  had  courage  repudiate  or  deny.  The  God  of 
Islam,  solitary,  severe,  stern,  inducing  man  to  obey 
by  motives  that  debase,  depraving  woman,  hating 
the  infidel,  handing  him  over  to  the  exterminating 
sword,  is  a  fit  deity  for  wild  Arabs,  or  fierce  Turks, 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  141 

but  no  god  for  civilized  and  free  man.  Even  the 
God  certain  ancient  Jews  conceived,  jealous,  angry, 
vengeful,  taking  pleasure  in  seeing  the  little  ones  of 
the  heathen  dashed  against  the  stones,  is  not  a 
being  that,  so  conceived,  can  remain  the  divine 
sovereign  of  man.  The  ultimate  and  absolute  God 
of  man  must  bear  on  him  the  mark  of  no  age,  no 
place,  no  race,  must  stand  over  all  like  His  own 
heaven,  be  like  it  luminous,  serene,  unsullied,  receiv- 
ing the  foul  breath  of  earth  only  to  purify  it,  its 
fragrance  only  to  send  it  back  in  holy  and  gentle 
influences. 

And  what  is  the  Christian  idea?  That  God  is  the 
Father,  the  Common  Father  of  man,  universal, 
everlasting  in  His  love.  He  hates  no  child,  miscon- 
duct does  not  create  dislike.  Love  was  the  end  for 
which  He  made  the  world,  for  which  He  made  every 
human  soul.  His  glory  is  to  difluse  happiness,  to 
fill  up  the  silent  places  of  the  universe  with  voices 
that  speak  out  of  glad  hearts.  As  a  Father  He 
cannot  but  be  Sovereign,  for  the  patriarch  is  the 
absolute  king.  As  Sovereign  He  cannot  but  enforce 
order,  for  only  thus  can  the  end  which  is  love  be  ob- 
tained. But  He  is  first  Father,  then  Sovereign, 
anxious  to  assert  His  authority,  not  for  the  sake  of 
the  law,  but  to  save  His  child.  Because  He  made  man 
for  love  He  cannot  bear  man  to  be  lost,  rather  than 
see  the  loss  fall  on  man  He  will  suffer  sacrifice;  sacri- 
fice to  Him  will  become  joy  when  it  restores  the  ruined, 
but  loss  to  man  will  be  absolute,  for  losing  himself  he 
loses  all.  So  the  great  Father  loves  man  in  spite  of 
his  sin,  in  the  midst  of  his  guilt,  loves  that  He  may 


148  Religion  in  History, 

save,  and  even  should  He  fail  in  saving,  He  does  not 
cease  to  love.  In  the  place  we  call  hell  eternal  love  as 
really  is  as  in  the  place  we  call  heaven,  though  in  the 
one  case  it  is  the  complacency  or  pleasure  in  the  holy 
and  the  happy  which  seems  like  the  brightness  of 
everlasting  sunshine  or  the  glad  music  of  waves  that 
break  into  perennial  laughter,  but  in  the  other  it  is 
the  compassion  or  pity  for  the  bad  and  the  miserable 
which  seems  like  a  face  shaded  with  everlasting 
regret,  or  the  raufiled  weeping  of  a  sorrow  too  deep 
to  be  heard.  That  grand  thought  of  a  God  who  is 
the  eternal  and  universal  Father,  all  the  more  regal 
a  Sovereign  that  He  is  so  absolutely  Father,  can 
never  fail  to  touch  the  heart  of  the  man  who  under- 
stands it,  be  he  savage  or  sage. 

2.  But  this  extraordinary  elevation  of  the  idea  of 
God  could  not  stand  alone,  it  affected  every  region 
of  thought  and  feeling.  The  first  thing  it  touched 
and  ennobled  was  the  idea  of  man.  The  more  divinely 
men  thought  of  God,  the  m.ore  highly  they  thought 
of  man.  Into  the  new  conception  of  God  all  the 
sublime  and  strong  elements  of  the  old  had  been 
received,  but  exalted  and  softened,  made  at  once 
majestic  and  gracious.  Men  at  a  given  stage  of 
culture  understand  severity  better  than  gentleness; 
and  so  the  severer  aspect  of  God  came  first,  because 
the  men  Moses  led  out  of  Egypt  could  understand  it, 
and  were  more  open  to  the  influence  of  justice  than 
of  grace.  When,  by  the  discipline  of  history  and 
the  teaching  of  prophets,  they  were  better  able  to 
understand  higher  conceptions,  higher  came,  but  only 
by  Him  who  realized  perfect  manhood  was  the  perfect 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  149 

Godhead  made  known.  And  the  higher  the  notion 
of  God  rose,  the  higher  grew  the  notion  of  man. 
Man  must  rightly  conceive  himself  to  respect  himself, 
and  his  progress  may  best  be  measured  by  his  suc- 
cessive ideas  of  his  own  nature.  He  is  to  himself, 
the  older  he  gets,  only  the  more  mysterious;  his 
being  is  a  miniature  universe,  surrounded  with  all  the 
mysteries  of  the  vaster.  We  cannot  forget  that  we 
once  were  not,  that  we  soon  shall  not  be;  great 
eternity  lies  behind,  an  eternity  no  less  great  lies 
before;  boundless  immensity  surrounds  us;  and  we, 
small,  self-conscious,  rise  like  marvellous  islets  of  life 
out  of  the  immeasurable  reaches  of  eternity,  and  feel 
washed  by  the  wide  spaces  of  immensity.  Every  man 
who  has  ever  speculated  much,  has  stood  silent,  fear- 
ful, before  that  thought  of  himself,  feeling  as  if  his 
little  self-conscious  being  trembled  like  a  solitary 
point  of  light  in  depths  of  unfathomable  darkness. 
All  the  great  thinkers  of  antiquity,  indeed,  of  all 
time,  have  felt  the  mystery  of  personal  being,  and 
have  thought  of  it  as  holding  within  it  the  secret  of 
the  universe.  A  great  teacher,  one  who  lately  passed 
away  from  us,  in  one  of  the  many  wonderful  para- 
graphs of  his  most  characteristic  work,  has  described 
this  humanity  of  ours  as  ^  ^  Emerging,  like  a  God- 
created,  fire-breathing  spirit-host,  from  the  Inane;  as 
hastening  stormfully  across  the  astonished  earth,  and 
plunging  again  into  the  Inane.  Earth's  mountains 
are  levelled  and  her  seas  filled  up,  in  our  passage; 
can  the  earth,  which  is  but  dead  and  a  vision,  resist 
spirits  which  have  reality  and  are  alive?  On  the 
hardest  adamant  some  footprint  of  us  is  stamped  in; 


160  Religion  in  History. 

the  last  rear  of  the  host  will  read  traces  of  the  earliest 
van.  But  whence?  O,  heaven,  whither?  Sense 
knows  not;  faith  knows  not;  only  that  it  is  through 
mystery  to  mystery,  from  God  and  to  God.  " 

"  We  are  such  stuff 
As  dreams  are  made  on,  and  our  httle  life 
Is  rounded  with  a  sleep!  " 

Now,  think  of  the  soft  transforming  light  the 
Christian  faith  has  by  its  conception  of  God  shed 
upon  the  idea  of  man,  and  the  stern  mystery  of 
human  life,  its  source  and  destiny.  Man  is  son  of 
the  Eternal  Father,  and  everlasting  son;  he  is  spirit, 
for  God  is  spirit.  The  thought  he  incarnates  is  ever 
seeking  the  thought  incarnated  in  all  material  being, 
and  working  in  all  historical  movements.  Man  who 
is  thought,  finding  thought  all  around  him,  feels  in 
the  midst  of  these  great  infinities  at  home.  But  the 
homeliness  becomes  sweeter  and  diviner  when  he 
knows  himself  a  filial  spirit,  with  God  as  the  paternal. 
His  eternity  becomes  our  eternity;  to  sense  this 
universe  is  a  dark  and  insoluble  mystery,  but  to 
spirit  that  knows  God  it  is  light,  for  He  is  Light. 
No  moment  in  eternity,  no  point  in  space  can  be 
terrible  to  the  soul  that  loves  to  be  at  home  with  the 
Eternal,  and  knows  that  His  home  is  everywhere  and 
every  moment.  Where  the  conscious  Son  is,  there 
is  the  besetting  Father.  We  issued  forth  from  no 
Inane,  but  from  the  bosom  of  Infinite  Love;  we 
vanish  into  no  Inane,  but  are  received  into  those 
divine  hands  that  love  to  hold  and  welcome  the  spirit 
that  trusts.     ^'  Thou  hast  made  us  for  Thyself,  "  said 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  151 

Augustine,  ^^  and  our  hearts  are  restless  till  they 
repose  in  Thee.  "  The  heart  at  peace  with  God  can 
taste  no  trouble,  for  it  finds  all  things  in  all  places 
work  together  for  its  good. 

3.  But  now,  how  are  God  and  man  related?  The 
simplest  duty  of  the  son  is  love;  nothing  is  more 
beautiful  or  simple  than  filial  piety.  The  joy  of  the 
father  is  affection,  his  delight  is  to  secure  the  happi- 
ness of  his  child.  In  the  religions  of  man  we  see  man's 
tendency  to  God,  his  search  after  Him.  The  search, 
indeed,  is  often  painful,  the  track  is  marked  with 
blood.  In  one  aspect  the  study  of  religions  is  a  most 
humiliating  study,  because  it  shows  what  dark,  what 
dismal  ideas  of  Deity,  and  painful  methods  of  reach- 
ing and  pleasing  Him  have  prevailed  among  men. 
I  often  sympathize  with  the  Roman  Lucretius,  when, 
looking  at  religion  as  it  was  in  his  day,  he  spoke  of 
it  as  lowering  upon  mortals  with  a  hideous  aspect,  as 
pressing  human  life  down  under  its  inexorable  foot. 
For  if  you  look  at  the  way  in  which  man  has  con- 
ceived God  and  tried  to  please  Him,  you  will  find  it 
hard  at  times  to  admire  his  religion.  Take  one  rite — 
human  sacrifice.  Think  what  horror  and  pain  must 
have  been  associated  with  Deity  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  could  give  the  fruit  of  their  body  for  the  sin  of 
the  soul!  There  is  a  wondrous  Greek  tragedy  that 
tells  how  the  great  hero,  Agamemnon,  offered  up  his 
daughter  Iphigenia,  that  he  might  win  from  the  gods 
a  favourable  breeze  to  waft  the  Greek  ships  to  the 
Trojan  shore.  It  was  little  wonder  that  the  Greek 
poets  saw  in  that  sacrifice  an  act  that,  while  it  might 
please  Deity,  yet  offended  the  moral  order  of  the 


152  Religion  in  History. 

universe,  and  awoke  the  Eumenides,  the  dread  un- 
slumbering  furies,  who  bring  retribution  to  man. 
Where  men  seek  to  please  God  by  outraging  heart 
and  conscience,  religion  has  become  perverted  from 
a  universal  good  to  the  basest  evil;  and,  as  I  said 
before,  human  sacrifices  were  known  to  almost  all 
the  old  religions,  as  indeed  they  are  known  to  many 
heathen  worships  to-day.  Remember  the  fundamental 
principle,  as  is  the  god  so  is  the  religion,  and  you 
will  see  that  human  sacrifice  but  expresses  or  repre- 
sents the  idea  of  God  in  these  heathen  faiths. 

Yet  it,  no  less,  represents  another  idea,  man's  sense 
of  sin,  of  ill-desert,  of  inability  by  character  or  con- 
duct to  please  God.  There  is  no  sterner  fact  in 
human  experience  than  the  guilty  conscience;  the 
man  who  is  not  saved  from  it  becomes  its  victim,  it 
depraves  him  and  darkens  all  his  world.  If  his 
religion  does  not  deliver  him  from  it,  it  debases  the 
religion.  Yet  does  not  this  only  the  more  help  us  to 
see  the  miserable  ideas  of  Deity  that  prevailed  among 
the  most  cultured  peoples?  They  did  not  think  so 
well  of  God  that  they  could  conceive  of  God  saving 
them,  pitying  and  helping  them  the  more  for  their 
awful  consciousness  of  misery  and  sin.  Instead  they 
had  to  win  his  favour,  win  it  by  pain,  by  sufiering, 
by  surrendering  to  what  they  most  feared  the  object 
they  most  loved.  If  we  think  of  these  things  need 
we  wonder  that  heathen  men  should  have  despised 
their  gods  and  hated  religion? 

4.  But  now  see  how  strangely  and  beautifully 
changed  and  dissimilar  the  Christian  notion  is.  Here 
God  does  not  demand  the  sacrifice,  He  makes  it; 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  153 

He  does  not  extort  blood,  does  not  delight  in  suffer- 
ing and  death;  He  gives,  and  the  giving  is  a  passion 
to  Him.  He  so  loves  the  world  that  He  gives  for 
its  life  His  only-begotten  Son.  The  great  sacrifice 
is  one  not  demanded  from  man,  it  is  given  of  God; 
His  is  the  act  and  His,  too,  the  design  to  bring  man 
home,  to  win  the  prodigal,  who  is  still  a  son,  from 
his  misery,  and  shame,  and  sin,  to  the  light  and  life 
and  love  of  the  Father's  house.  Under  Moses  God 
gave  the  law,  and  the  law  came  with  its  severity,  the 
dread  threatening  that  every  sin  had  its  appropriate 
penalty.  But  under  Christ  God  gives  His  love,  that 
He  may  the  more  completely  win  man's.  The  idea 
was  a  development  when  viewed  in  relation  to  the 
Old  Testament  religion;  but  it  is  a  contrast,  nay  a 
contradiction,  to  all  the  other  religions  man  has  ever 
professed.  It  is,  indeed,  a  contradiction  that  but 
brings  out  at  once  the  grandeur  and  the  uniqueness 
of  the  Christian  conception.  It  shows  the  moral 
energy  of  God  exercised,  not  in  the  way  of  retri- 
bution, but  in  the  way  of  redemption;  it  shows  the 
sovereign  working  in  the  way  of  the  Father,  stooping 
unto  utmost  sacrifice  that  He  might  save  and  restore 
man. 

And  the  form  in  which  He  works  this  glorious 
redemption  is  remarkable.  It  is  in  His  son,  in  and 
through  One  who  bears  the  nature  of  man,  and  is  in 
that  nature  the  image  of  the  invisible  God.  Deity 
does  not  dwell  remote,  aloof,  apart  from  man.  He  is 
around.  He  is  about.  He  is  within,  He  has  lifted 
human  nature  into  connexion  and  kinship  Avith  the 
Divine.     The  Son  who  suffers  for  us  dignifies  the 


154  Religion  in  History. 

nature  in  which  he  suffers.  In  condemning  sin  He 
exalts  humanity;  ever  since  man  through  Christ 
learned  the  great  secret — the  kinship  of  his  humanity 
with  Deity,  see  how  that  humanity  has  risen  out  of 
the  dust,  become  conscious  of  the  Divine  affinities 
within  it,  and  striven  towards  the  realization  of  its 
more  glorious  possibilities. 

Thus  in  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  the  great 
truth  is  implied,  that  man  is  bound  by  kinship,  by 
fellowship  of  nature  to  the  God  who  is  his  Father. 
What  shows  us  the  descent  of  God  to  man,  shows  us 
also  the  ascent  of  man  to  God;  He  who  came  down 
into  our  humanity,  lowly  as  His  outward  form  seemed, 
has  more  than  all  the  sages  of  the  world  given  us  an 
idea  of  our  humanity  that  ennobles  each  individual 
man. 

IV. 

We  must  now  turn  from  these  beliefs  in  them- 
selves, and  look  at  their  action  in  and  through  the 
Christian  religion  as  it  appears  in  history.  We 
have  seen  Christ's  idea  of  religion  in  His  own 
person,  and  in  His  teaching.  We  have  also  seen 
the  great  cardinal  beliefs  on  which  it  reposed.  We 
have  now  to  see  how  these  were  or  ought  to  be 
expressed,  articulated,  and  embodied  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion. 

1.  And  we  had  better  begin  this  new  discussion 
by  looking  first  at  their  action  on  the  ideal  of 
humanity.  Now  note,  Christ  created  the  idea  of 
humanity;  it  was  not  till  He  made  it;  it  was  His 
creation,  He  spoke,  and  it  stood  up  a  living  thing. 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion,  155 

Two  great  classes  of  forces,  which  we  may  call  cen- 
trifugal, had  hitherto  prevented,  as  in  many  places 
they  still  prevent,  tjie  ideal  of  humanity  from  being 
realized  and  understood.  The  first  of  these  orders 
of  forces  was  the  national.  Men  are  divided  into 
nations,  and  nations  are  divided  by  race,  by  lan- 
guage and  by  religion.  The  differences  of  nation 
and  race,  and  language,  can  be  overcome,  but  differ- 
ences of  religion  are  radical;  where  they  stand,  men 
can  never  meet  as  brothers.  If  men  differ  in  colour, 
in  blood,  and  in  speech,  they  may  still  recognize 
common  manhood,  but  as  a  matter  of  history, 
common  manhood  has  never  been  recognized  save 
through  common  religion,  and  the  only  common 
religion  which  has  made  men  recognize  their  com- 
mon humanity  has  been  tha.t  of  Christ. 

The  second  great  class  of  centrifugal  forces  are  so- 
cial, they  are  caste,  rank,  blood,  class,  money,  culture 
— all  the  thousand  things  that  make  men  of  the  same 
race,  language,  and  religion  feel  as  if  they  were  yet 
divided  into  a  multitude  of  separate  cliques  or  sects. 
These  divisions  find  in  certain  religions  their  highest 
sanction.  The  Brahmanism  of  to-day  has  no  unity 
of  worship  or  of  faith,  its  distinctive  characteristic  is 
its  system  of  castes,  the  deep  and  impassable  lines 
by  which  it  distinguishes  men  who  speak  the  same 
language,  and  live  under  the  same  laws. 

Now  the  Christian  is  the  only  religion  that  in 
history  and  in  idea  has  opposed  and  victoriously  con- 
tended against  these  social,  separative,  and  dis- 
integrative forces.  For  Islam  is  in  this  respect 
secondary  and  derivative;  its  universalism  but  illus- 


156  Religion  in  History. 

trates  and  confirms  the  Christian.  The  idea  of 
Roman  citizenship  when  extended  to  the  provincials 
seemed  to  create  equality,  but  the  fact  of  Roman 
slavery  cancelled  and  repealed  it.  The  idea  of 
humanity  could  not  be  created  by  external  machinery, 
like  the  action  of  an  imperial  policy;  it  could  only 
grow  out  of  a  conception  of  man's  nature,  and  the 
relations  in  which  he  stood  as  a  whole  to  the  Creator. 
The  peculiarity  of  Christ's  action  was  that  it  modified 
man  from  within;  it  made  humanity  one  by  its 
doctrine  of  God  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  human 
sonship  on  the  other.  What  was  the  very  first  thing 
that  the  greatest  of  the  Christian  apostles  said  to  the 
most  cultivated  of  the  heathens?  ^^  God  hath  made 
of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to  dwell  on  all 
the  face  of  the  earth."  When  he  addressed  the 
Christian  communities,  what  did  he  say?  '^In 
Christ  there  is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  circumcision 
nor  uncircumcision,  Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor 
free,  but  Christ  is  all  and  in  all."  And  what  did 
this  mean?  The  distinctions  of  race  had  perished 
before  the  universal  religion;  at  its  bidding  humanity 
stood  forth  as  one,  a  brotherhood.  So  the  unity  of 
man  meant  fraternity;  men  who  were  sons  of  God, 
who  called  God  Father,  were  brothers.  Brother- 
hood necessarily  involved  equality;  where  frater- 
nity reigned,  slavery  could  have  no  place,  the  sons 
of  the  free  home  must  themselves  be  free.  With 
freedom  there  came  the  right  of  man  to  seek  God, 
to  speak  to  Him,  to  live  according  to  the  will  He 
revealed  in  His  word  and  to  the  conscience;  and 
therefore  the  right  men  call   of  private  judgment, 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  15t 

the  right  to  think  and  speak  the  thoughts  man 
holds  most  true.  But  where  men  were  conceived 
to  be  one,  a  brotherhood,  equal  and  free,  there  the 
duty  emerged  of  common  love  and  common  service. 
The  men  God  loved,  man  was  bound  to  love,  where 
He  willed  good,  man  was  bound  to  do  it;  without 
love  of  man  no  love  of  God  was  possible,  without 
service  of  man  there  could  be  no  service  which  God 
approved. 

Out  of  this  ideal  grew  the  great  notion  of  a  divine 
society,  humanity  organized  into  a  city  or  state  that 
should  perfectly  express  and  realize  the  will  of  God. 
The  Christian  ideal  or  thought  of  the  city  of  God 
had  no  parallel  in  any  religion  or  system  of  antiquity. 
Had  I  time  I  would  sketch  for  you  the  greatest  ideal 
of  a  perfect  society  known  to  the  ancient  world, — 
perhaps,  outside  Christ,  the  greatest  ideal  known  to 
the  modern, — the  dream  Plato  incarnated  in  his 
'^  Republic."  Were  it  possible  I  could  have  wished 
to  unsphere  the  spirit  of  Plato,  and  call  him  from 
those  worlds  that  hold 

"The  immortal  mind  that  hath  forsook 
Her  mansion  in  this  fleshly  nook," 

that  he  might  teach  us  how  he,  the  greatest  of  the 
Greeks,  conceived  and  would  realize  the  ideal  state. 
Think  where  he  lived,  in  the  fairest  land  of  antiquity, 
under  the  brightest  sun,  amid  the  most  cultivated 
people,  pupil  of  the  greatest  teacher  and  philosopher 
of  his  race,  associated  with  the  wisest  statesmen,  heir 
to  an  heroic  past,  moved  by  a  poetry  that  is  still  the 
joy  of  the  scholar,  and  then  conceive  him  turning  in 


158  Religion  in  History, 

his  maturest  manhood  to  think  out  the  model  of  a 
perfect  republic.  And  what  was  it?  It  was  a  state 
where  there  was  to  be  little  freedom,  for  philosophers 
were  to  be  kings — and  a  strange  king  the  philosopher 
always  makes,  for  he  is  a  man  resolute  to  fit  men 
into  his  theory,  and  his  best  theory  is,  you  may  be 
well  assured,  a  bad  frame  for  the  simplest  man. 
And  the  state  these  philosophers  were  to  rule  was 
to  be  one  where  the  home  was  destroyed,  where 
women  were  to  be  held  in  common,  where  there  was 
to  be  a  community  of  goods,  where  life  was  to  be 
regulated  by  rules  and  hard  fixed  methods  that 
would  have  allowed  no  elasticity,  no  play  for  glad 
and  spontaneous  energy.  That  Republic  could  not 
have  been  realized  without  the  ruin  of  humanity,  and 
was  possible  at  its  best  only  for  the  Greek,  was  con- 
ceived in  derision  of  the  barbarian,  and  afforded  even 
to  Greek  nature  only  the  poorest  exercise. 

Turn  now  to  the  ideal  Christ  created.  It  lifted 
all  men,  through  its  doctrine  of  God  and  the  Redeemer, 
into  a  unity  that  was  a  brotherhood,  and  involved  an 
equality  of  rights  on  the  one  hand  and  a  sovereignty 
of  duty  on  the  other.  It  left  the  mother  and  the 
wife  and  the  daughter  to  make  glad  and  enlarge  the 
spirit  of  the  husband  and  the  father,  to  evoke  and 
ennoble  the  soul  of  the  son.  It  left  the  man  to  be 
while  the  citizen,  the  husband,  while  the  husband, 
the  brother  of  his  kind,  the  servant  in  his  age  of  the 
everlasting  God.  It  left  the  state  where  it  stood,  but 
it  changed  all  the  citizens,  ennobled  them,  made  them 
simpler,  truer  men;  and  through  this  change  of  the 
men  altogether  changed  the  state.     It  aimed  at  the 


The  New  Testament  in  Beligion.  159 

good  of  all,  through  seeking  the  good  of  each,  by 
blessing  the  one  it  laboured  to  bless  the  many. 
Whatever  meant  misery  to  man  the  Christian  was  to 
relieve,  whatever  meant  wrong  he  was  to  redress. 
They  say  that  Christ  has  nothing  to  do  with  ques- 
tions of  state;  what  concerns  the  conduct  of  nations 
or  of  peoples  does  not  concern  Him.  No  saying  less 
true  could  any  man  utter;  all  questions  of  state,  all 
social  and  civil  politics  are  to  me  questions  of  religion. 
And  such  they  must  be  to  the  man  who  wishes  to 
realize  on  earth  the  kingdom  of  God.  Never,  while  an 
abuse  tarries,  while  a  hate  reigns,  while  a  barbarism 
remains  unconquered,  never,  while  ignorance  broods 
with  its  dark  and  jealous  wing  over  the  mind  of  man, 
while  injustice  or  unequal  law  or  disorder  or  wrong 
live  on  earth  can  the  Christian  man  be  still  or 
inactive  in  the  arena  of  public  life.  All  without  as 
within  us  must  be  brought  into  harmony  with  the 
great  law  of  Christ,  and  only  as  the  harmony  of  the 
renewed  spirit  is  reflected  in  the  renewed  humanity 
will  the  glorious  dream  of  the  city  of  God  be  realized. 
2.  This  brings  us,  secondly,  to  Christ's  method  of 
realizing  the  ideal  of  humanity.  His  method,  indeed, 
is  very  simple,  but  it  is  remarkable  in  its  strength. 
That  method  does  not  proceed  by  ignoring  the 
hardest  and  most  painful  facts  of  our  human  experi- 
ence. Christ  was  open-eyed  as  regards  the  actual  state 
of  our  nature  and  world.  He  knew  it  was  miserable, 
altogether  evil,  but  He  did  not  mean  to  skin  the  sore. 
He  said,  as  He  laid  His  finger  on  the  evil,  '^  This  sore 
must  be  healed,  sin  is,  and  sin  must  be  vanquished." 
No  religion  has  so  great  a  sense  of  sin  and  at  the 


160  Religion  in  History. 

same  time  of  salvation.  The  sense  of  sin  indeed  is 
almost  shared  in  its  intensity  by  another  than  the 
religion  of  Christ,  that  of  Buddha.  Buddha  was  a 
beautiful  spirit,  a  character  of  rare  pity  and  gentle- 
ness, touched  to  his  inmost  soul  by  sorrow  for  sin, 
and  at  the  sight  of  human  misery.  And  his  whole 
system  was  inspired  with  the  desire  to  deliver  man 
from  the  sorrow  he  hated — but  how  deliver  him? 
By  freeing  him  from  being,  by  bringing  him  to  a 
death  that  was  annihilation.  He  saved  men  by 
destroying  man,  and  he  magnified  sin  that  he  might 
only  the  more  pour  contempt  on  life.  But  what  of 
Christ?  His  sense  of  sin  had  for  background  His 
exalted  ideal  of  man;  it  was  because  man  was  so 
noble  that  his  sin  was  so  terrible.  And  what  did 
He  aim  at?  Vanquishing  the  sin  but  saving  the 
man.  If  you  throw  away  a  life  that  you  may  deliver 
from  disease,  what  does  it  mean  but  that  you  do  not 
care  for  the  person  whose  life  it  is.  But  if  you  die 
to  conquer  the  disease  and  save  the  person,  does  it 
not  mean  that  your  hatred  of  disease  is  only  the 
reverse  side  of  your  love  for  life?  Christ's  aversion 
to  sin  but  expresses  His  love  of  man,  and  the  glorious 
peculiarity  of  His  method  was  this — while  He  van- 
quished the  sin  He  saved  the  man. 

It  is  well  to  look  at  Christ's  peculiarity  in  this 
matter.  Men  in  face  of  sin  may  be  divided  into 
various  classes.  There  is  the  Cynic;  he  is  a  common 
person  in  these  days;  our  clubs  make  him;  they 
are  great  factors  of  cynicism.  Where  amid  much 
comfort  you  can  talk  scandal,  indulge  wit,  and 
derive  comfort  from  the  scorn  in  which  you  hold 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  161 

weaker  men — it  is  easy  and  natural  to  be  a  cynic. 
The  cynic  has  ever  risen  in  days  like  these,  he  was 
in  Christ's  time  and  before  it,  as  he  is  now,  and  said 
then  as  he  says  now,  ' '  What  a  poor  thing  is  man  1 
A  compound  of  meanness  and  vanity,  and  whether 
his  meanness  or  his  vanity  be  most  to  be  despised, 
it  is  hard  to  tell,  yet  were  it  not  for  this  compound, 
what  should  be  have  to  laugh  at,  what  to  make  life 
pleasant?  "  The  cynic  little  dreams  that  in  so  de- 
spising man,  he  but  shows  himself  despicable.  Yet 
it  is  ever  so;  the  faultiest  men  quickly  see  and 
severely  condemn  their  own  faults  when  reflected  in 
another's  face. 

Then  there  is  the  Epicurean,  the  man  who  loves 
pleasure,  who  hates  alike  the  thought  and  the 
experience  of  pain.  To  be  burdened  with  a  sense  of 
man's  misery,  is  but  to  have  his  own  pleasure  marred, 
and  so  he  says:  ^^  Why  trouble  ourselves  about  a  state 
we  cannot  mend;  man  will  be  foolish;  let  him  be  a 
fool,  while  we  here  can  at  least  make  our  own  lives 
pleasant,  and  so  lessen  the  pain  of  humanity  by  secur- 
ing and  enlarging  our  own  happiness." 

Then  there  is  the  Stoic,  who  believes  in  the 
sanity  of  Nature  and  the  'suflSciency  of  man  to 
obey  the  laws  contained  within  it.  And  so  he 
speaks  thus:  ^'Virtue  is  beautiful,  the  man  who  is 
not  virtuous  is  a  creature  to  be  pitied;  he  belongs  to 
the  lowest  type  of  men,  for  he  contradicts  and  defeats 
the  nature  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  Man.  But  our 
virtue  is  our  own,  evolved  by  our  own  action  from 
within  ourselves;  let  us  cultivate  virtue,  and  so,  by 
showing  its  beauty,  make  it  attractive,  only  let  eur 


162  Religion  in  History. 

calm  never  be  broken  by  the  restless  passion  that 
would  suffer  for  the  evil.  The  weaker  must  always 
be,  but  to  the  stronger  they  ought  only  to  be  condi- 
tions for  the  exercise  of  his  calmer  strength." 

These  are  the  criticisms  of  selfishness,  the  doctrines 
of  impotence.  Virtue  that  will  not  suffer  to  save 
man,  is  but  decent  vice.  There  is  no  parsimony  so 
miserable  as  the  one  whose  chief  concern  is  personal 
happiness.  But  even  men  of  these  types  have  often, 
especially  under  the  influence  of  Christian  ideals, 
become  zealous  doers  of  good,  helpers  of  humanity, 
and  let  us  give  all  honour  to  men  ruled,  even  though 
they  may  not  know  it,  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  who 
follow  Him  in  any  degree  even  while  they  do  not 
honour  His  name. 

But  observe  Christ's  peculiarity;  He  stood  alone, 
and  His  religion  stands  alone  here — He  was  a 
Redeemer,  His  religion  is  a  religion  of  redemption. 
It  sees  sin,  and  it  hates  sin,  but  to  it  every  sinner 
is  a  man  that  may  be  saved.  To  save  him  Christ 
lived  and  died,  to  save  him  the  Spirit  of  God  works 
and  wills,  to  save  him  every  good  man  ought  to 
labour  and  to  watch.  The  passion  of  Christ  is  the 
symbol  of  His  religion,  it  suffers  everywhere  for  the 
sin  of  humanity,  but  in  order  to  the  deliverance  of 
the  humanity  that  has  sinned.  The  state  of  estrange- 
ment from  God,  God  wills  to  change  into  a  state  of 
reconciliation,  and  the  religion  of  Christ  is  the  means 
that  works  it;  and  it  is  of  all  the  religions  the  only 
one  that  is  in  the  true  and  proper  sense  a  religion 
of  redemption. 


The  New  Testament  in  Religion.  163 

V. 

Now,  the  thing  that  chiefly  concerns  us  about 
this  religion  of  redemption,  is  the  way  in  which  it 
affects  the  personal  and  collective  life  of  man. 

1.  Well,  then,  mark  how  it  restores  the  depraved 
nature  into  the  image  of  its  Creator,  and  makes  it  as 
redeemed  a  vehicle  of  the  Divine  purposes,  a  factor  of 
the  order  and  ends  of  God.  Now  I  would  just  note 
three  simple  historical  facts  in  relation  to  Christ's 
redemptive  action.  He  has  proved  Himself  in  His 
handling  of  men  possessed  of  three  great  powers. 
First:  an  unparalleled  power  to  change  men,  to  make 
bad  men  good.  Secondly:  an  unparalleled  power  to 
make  the  men  He  has  reformed  into  factors  of  good 
— agents  of  redemption.  Thirdly:  an  unparalleled 
power  to  associate  the  men  He  has  redeemed  into 
societies  with  larger  ideas  than  the  states  of  earth, 
societies  with  an  ideal  and  mission  of  their  own, 
or  rather,  one  that  is  altogether  His.  In  proof 
of  His  possession  of  these  gifts  I  would  appeal  to 
history.  I  ask  you  this:  Where  will  you  find  three 
men  who  have  more  profoundly  affected  the  history 
of  the  world  than  Peter,  Paul  and  John?  What  were 
they?  Peter,  when  Jesus  found  him,  was  an  ignorant, 
impulsive,  superstitious  fisherman,  plying  his  craft  on 
the  sea  of  Galilee,  without  thought  or  vision  of  the 
greater  world  around.  John  was  a  brother  fisherman, 
rather  more  cultivated  and  refined  perhaps,  yet  with 
hardly  more  promise  of  capability  and  power.  Paul, 
when  Jesus  found  him,  was  a  tentmaker,  poor,  mean 
in  bodily  appearance,  possibly  painful  to  look  at, 


1€4  Religion  in  History, 

certainly  no  person  a  passer-by  would  have  selected  as 
a  manifest  king  of  men.  But  just  see  what  these 
three  men,  coming  under  the  influence  of  Christ,  be- 
came and  did.  Peter  conducts  himself  before  priests 
and  rulers  like  a  statesman,  founds  and  administers 
churches  with  the  wisdom  of  a  far-seeing  ruler  of 
men.  John  writes  the  most  marvellous  history  on 
record,  serenest,  clearest,  profoundest,  fullest  of  in- 
sight into  the  secret  springs  of  life  and  action  in  God, 
tenderest  in  the  delicate  portraiture  of  the  Christ  he 
knew,  most  awful  and  graphic  in  its  description  of 
the  men  that  plotted  his  death,  and  accomplished  it. 
Paul  becomes  the  author  of  Epistles  that  command 
the  mind,  that  have  made  and  governed  the  thought 
of  the  cultivated  peoples  of  these  Christian  centuries. 
And  these  three  are  but  typical.  In  every  age 
this  marvellous  power  that  Christ  possesses  has  stood 
expressed  and  declared  in  great  persons.  The  creative 
personalities  of  the  Christian  centuries  are  of  Christ's 
making,  and  as  He  made  the  persons,  so  He  has 
ruled  their  conduct  and  their  lives.  The  order  of  his- 
tory since  He  lived  has  been  an  order  He  has  guided, 
especially  in  all  that  has  made  for  human  grace 
and  good.  He  who  has  been  so  able  to  change 
men  and  make  them  factors  of  good  for  man  has 
indeed  been  proved  by  transcendent  fact  our  great 
Redeemer. 

2.  What  I  think  of  the  action  of  Christian  men 
and  societies  in  history  will  in  later  lectures  become 
apparent.  But  let  the  creative  personalities  of  the 
Christian  centuries,  the  men  with  a  passion  for  the 
good  of  man,  witness  to  the  distinctive  power  of 


Tlie  New  Testament  in  Religion.  165 

Christ.     In  Himself  we  see  what  He  means  man  to 
be  to  man;  in  the  men  He  has  formed,  who  huve 
lived  under  the  inspiration  of  His  love,  we  see  the 
sort  of  service  He   has   rendered   to   humanity  in 
history,  one  of  the  ways  in  which  He  has  ameliorated 
our  common  lot.     Deeds  are  greater  than  words. 
Men  may  find  parallels  to  sayings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  Confucius  or  in   Buddha,  in   Plato   or   in 
Seneca,   but  one  thing   they  cannot    parallel,   the 
achievements   of  Christ   in  the   region    of  human 
personalities.      Here   He   has  been    the    Supreme 
Creator,  one  who  dwells  altogether  alone.     Do  not 
think  that  Buddha   can  stand   by   His   side.     The 
person  so  named  was,  as  I  have  said,  a  gentle  and 
beautiful  human  character,  oppressed  by  the  sense  of 
human  suffering,  laden  with  sorrow  at  the  thought  of 
the  miserable  and  illusive  life  to   which   man   was 
doomed;  but  he  had  not  the  love  of  life  that  turned 
all  man's  moral  energies  into  forces  that  worked  for 
its  amelioration.     Buddha  so  hated  life  as  to   ex- 
tinguish the  very  desire  to  mend  it;  Christ  so  loved 
life  as  to  create  in  all  who  loved  Him  the  desire  for 
its  ennoblement.     The  men  who  have  most  imitated 
Buddha  have  preached  a  gospel  of  annihilation;  the 
men  who  have  best  known  Christ  have  preached  a 
gospel  of  salvation,  of  grace  that  reigns   through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life.     The  aim  of  Buddha 
was  to  make  men  know  their  misery  that  they  might 
be  willing  to  lay  down  the  burden  of  existence,  but 
the  purpose  of  Christ  was  to  make  men  conscious  of 
sin  that  they  might  live  unto  holiness,  forsake  the 
darkness  and  seek  the  light.     To  Buddha  the  highest 


166  Religion  in  History. 

life  was  the  secluded,  the  renunciation  of  the  fami- 
liar duties  of  society  and  the  home;  but  to  Christ  the 
holiest  life  was  the  life  of  active  beneficence,  the 
piety  that  helped  our  neighbour,  that  hoaoured  God 
by  serving  man.  The  secret  of  His  power  was  His 
love  of  man;  the  men  that  love  Him  must  love  as 
He  loved,  and  so  translate  into  the  realities  of 
personal  character  and  social  conduct  the  health,  the 
holiness,  the  wholeness  of  His  glorious  ideal. 

3.  I  know  there  are  men  in  England  who  use  base 
words  when  they  speak  of  our  Christianity.  It  is 
to  you,  working  men,  that  they  make  their  appeal. 
Now,  in  matters  of  this  kind,  we  can  only  concern 
ourselves  with  men  who  use  honourable  and  veracious 
speech;  with  those  whose  language  is  but  buffoon- 
ery, and  the  brutal  buffoonery  of  poltoons,  we  can 
have  no  concern  whatever.  The  great  heart  of  the 
world  is  just,  and,  turning  from  the  ignorant  and  ran- 
corous men,  who  fight  with  the  poisoned  weapons  of 
savages  or  slaves,  I  cry  across  the  ages  to  the  mighty 
spirits  of  the  Christian  centuries,  ' '  What  think  ye  of 
Christ?  "  The  poets,  led  by  the  great  Florentine, 
the  man  of  sad,  lone  spirit,  of  face  so  beautiful,  yet 
so  full  of  wondrous  thought,  who  imagined  the 
strange  circles  of  the  Inferno^  and  yet  saw  as  in 
open  vision  the  celestial  ^' Mount  of  light,"  while 
Chaucer,  in  his  quaint  English  guise,  and  Shake- 
speare, ^'  Fancy's  sweetest  child,"  and  Milton,  whose 
voice  had  a  sound  as  of  the  sea,  and  Cowper,  and 
Coleridge,  and  Wordsworth,  and  many  another 
bright  spirit  follow  in  his  train — make  answer,  '■'•  He 
was  the  soul  of  our  poetry,  our  inspiration,  and  our 


TJie  New  Testament  in  Religion.  167 

joy."  ''What  think  ye  of  Christ?"  we  ask  men 
of  thought,  and  out  of  the  middle  ages  rise  the 
schoolmen  whose  mighty  intellects  made  light  in  its 
darkness,  the  founders  of  Modern  Philosophy, 
Descartes,  and  Bacon,  and  Locke,  the  foremost 
minds  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  century  of 
unbelief,  Leibnitz,  and  Newton,  and  Berkeley, 
and  Kant;  the  thinkers,  too,  that  in  sheer  intel- 
lectual force  transcend  all  the  other  men  of  this 
century  of  conscious  wisdom,  Schelling  and  Hegel, 
and  they  altogether  confess  and  acknowledge  ' '  the 
Christ  stands  alone,  pre-eminent,  only  Son  of  God 
among  men."  ''What  think  ye  of  Christ?"  we  ask 
the  great  philanthropists,  the  men  who  have  made 
our  laws  kindlier  while  more  just  to  the  criminal,  our 
prisons  more  wholesome  while  more  deterrent  of 
crime,  who  have  accomplished  the  liberation  of  the 
slave,  who  have  made  us  conscious  of  our  duties  to 
savage  peoples  abroad  and  to  our  lapsed  at  home; 
the  men  who  in  these  centuries  have  been  foremost 
in  doing  good  and  in  guiding  to  nobleness  the  mind 
of  man,  and  Bernard  and  Francis  of  Assisi,  John 
Howard  and  Mrs.  Fry,  Wilberforce  and  Livingstone, 
surrounded  by  the  noble  band  of  all  our  good 
Samaritans,  answer  with  one  accord,  "Without  Him 
we  should  have  been  without  our  inspiration  and  our 
strength,  the  love  of  man  and  the  hatred  of  wrong 
that  have  constrained  us  to  our  work. "  ' '  What  think 
ye  of  Christ? "  we  cry  to  the  great  masters  of  music 
and  song,  who  have  woven  for  us  the  divine  speech  of 
the  Oratorio,  and  filled  the  air  with  harmonies  grander 
than  any  nature  has  known,  and  they  for  answer  but 


168  Religion  in  History. 

bid  us  read  the  names  of  their  supreme  works, 
'^Messiah,"  ^^St.  Paul,"  ^ ^  Redemption, "  and  know 
that  but  for  Christ  the  one  art  in  which  the  modern 
has  far  transcended  the  ancient  world  would  never 
have  been.  ' '  What  think  ye  of  Christ?  "  we  ask  the 
painters  who  have  made  the  canvas  live  with  their 
ideals  of  love  and  holiness,  pity  and  suffering;  the 
sculptors  who  have  chiselled  the  shapeless  marble 
into  forms  so  noble  as  to  need  only  speech  to  be  the 
living  man  made  perfect;  and  their  great  leaders, 
from  famed  Giotto  through  Fra  Angelico  to  Michael 
Angelo  and  Raphael,  down  to  our  own  Reynolds  and 
Ruskin,  send  forth  the  response,  ''He  has  been  the 
soul  of  our  art,  our  dream  by  night,  our  joy  by  day, 
to  paint  Him  worthily  were  the  highest,  though, 
alas,  most  hopless  feat  of  man. "  0,  yes;  thou  Christ 
the  Redeemer,  Son  of  God  yet  Son  of  Man,  stand 
forth  in  Thy  serene  and  glorious  power,  Leader  of 
our  progress,  Author  of  all  our  good,  ideal  and  in- 
spiration of  all  our  right  and  righteousness,  and 
reign  over  the  hearts  and  in  the  lives  of  men! 


LECTURE  lY. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  IN  THE   FIRST   FIFTEEN 
CENTURIES   OF   ITS   EXISTENCE. 

What  we  have  to  attempt  this  evening  is  to  study 
the  action  of  the  religion  of  Christ  in  the  first  fifteen 
centuries  of  its  existence.  That  is  an  immense  sub- 
ject, quite  sufficient  in  itself  to  awe  and  oppress 
any  one's  spirit.  To  make  the  attempt  to  discuss  or 
describe  it  in  an  hour's  discourse,  is  certainly  to  ex- 
hibit a  courage  more  allied  to  adventure  than  to 
discretion.  What,  too,  is  intended,  is  the  more 
difficult,  as  we  must  attempt  to  get  below  the  sur- 
face at  the  underlying  principles  or  causes,  that  we 
may  the  better  discover  their  nature,  their  action, 
and  their  end. 

It  were  easy  to  write  or  to  tell  the  history  of  a 
Church,  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  describe  the  history 
of  a  Religion.  Yet,  to  the  partial,  or  partisan,  or 
careless  historian,  or  to  the  designing  polemic,  these 
are  identical,  to  be  treated  as  one  and  the  same. 
Here  they  are  to  be  held  as  throughout  distinct;  as 
though  often  blended  in  action,  yet  as  diflerent  as  are 
form  and  matter.  It  is  needful  that  we  see  that  what 
runs  back  into  Christ,  or  follows  by  necessary  conse- 


170  Religion  in  History. 

quence  from  Him,  and  from  the  circle  of  truths  He 
created,  and  whose  centre  He  is,  is  of  the  essence  of 
the  Christian  Religion;  but  what  springs  from  the 
needs,  the  ambitions,  the  interests  of  any  Christian 
Society,  is  the  Society's  alone. 

I  do  not  stand  here  as  the  apologist  of  any  church, 
least  of  all  those  of  churches  that  to  me,  in  many 
points,  fundamentally  misconceive  and  misinterpret 
the  very  idea,  as  in  many  respects  they  have  per- 
verted and  depraved  the  reality,  of  the  religion  of 
Christ.  What  I  wish  to  do  is  simply  this,  to  see  how 
that  religion  has  acted  in  history,  how  it  has  affected 
the  happiness,  the  progress,  the  wellbeing  of  society 
and  of  man.  In  the  nineteen  centuries  of  its  exist- 
ence, it  has  furnished,  on  the  most  stupendous  scale, 
experimental  proof  of  its  intrinsic  character,  contents, 
and  qualities.  In  spite  of  manifold  and  most  burden- 
some impedimenta,  it  has  changed  everything,  man 
most  of  all;  and  every  change  it  has,  as  a  religion, 
worked,  has  worked  altogether  for  good.  We  know 
what  the  world  was  when  Christianity  entered  it,  we 
know  what  it  is  to-day,  and  at  every  moment  between 
then  and  now,  we  can  trace  the  history  and  action  of 
the  great  Christian  ideas  or  truths,  now  acting  in 
secret,  now  openly,  now  receiving  the  merciless  hate 
of  a  mighty  empire,  now  collecting,  directing,  pene- 
trating, as  with  the  passion  of  God,  the  concentrated 
enthusiasms  of  peoples.  And  if  we  are  to  understand 
matters  aright,  we  must  compare  what  was  with  what 
is,  and  find  in  what  Tvay  Christianity  has  worked  to 
change  what  was  into  what  is;  and  only  when  that 
has  been  done,  can  we  be  in  a  position  to  answer  the 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        Itl 

question — has  it  acted  in  the  common  life  of  man  as 
a  divine  religion  ought  to  act?  have  its  fruits  been 
but  the  apples  of  Sodom,  or  have  they  been  indeed 
living  grapes  from  the  living  vine  planted  in  the 
paradise  of  God? 

I  hope  it  is  not  necessary  to  restate  the  purpose  of 
these  lectures.  They  were  intended,  not  to  deal  with 
doubt  on  the  one  hand,  or  doctrine  on  the  other,  but 
simply  to  exhibit  the  action  of  religion  in  history, 
with  a  view  to  discover  its  true  relation  to  the  great 
economical,  industrial,  and  political  problems  that 
interest  the  working  men  of  to-day.  This  is  a  work 
which  I  think  you  have  a  right  to  ask  from  the  men 
who  study  and  teach  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Here  are  Christian  men  and  churches  faced  with 
Nihilism,  Socialism,  Secularism,  and  many  another 
form  of  negation,  or  passionate  unbelief,  often  more 
remarkable  for  the  intensity  of  its  bigotry  and  the 
density  of  its  ignorance  than  any  other  quality  be- 
sides. I  have  meanwhile  no  wish  to  deal  with  these 
as  a  critic  on  the  one  hand,  or  an  apologist  on  the 
other.  It  were  an  easy  thing  to  grapple  with  their 
assumptions  and  their  ignorance,  and  handle  them 
after  the  manner  of  the  apologetical  protagonist. 
But  my  purpose  is  quite  other.  If  they  are,  why 
are  they?  There  is  a  reason  for  their  being.  Have 
they  not  in  this  and  other  lands  been  born  of  disap- 
pointed hopes?  Men  have  a  right  to  expect  that 
religion,  as  Christian  religion,  shall  cure  poverty, 
shall  make  the  charity  that  is  at  once  the  luxury  of 
the  rich  and  the  misery  of  the  poor,  cease;  shall 
bring  a  time  when  wealth,  equally  distributed,  shall 


1*72  Religion  in  History, 

create  the  happiest  of  civil  and  social  and  secular 
states.  And  much  of  our  Nihilism  and  our  Socialism 
has  been  born  of  disappointed  hopes,  and  hopes  that 
were  legitimate.  And  the  Christian  churches,  if 
they  are  wise,  will  not  simply  play  the  part  of  apolo- 
gist, and  say  to  these  people,  '^How  false  and  futile 
are  your  beliefs,  ill-considered,  inconsequent,  incoher- 
ent, formed  without  knowledge,  maintained  without 
science,  a  bundle  of  mere  illiterate  dogmatisms;" 
but,  though,  unhappily,  all  this  may  be  true,  they 
will  say,  ^'  We  are  to  blame  for  these  crude  negations; 
they  are  the  children  of  our  neglect,  the  Nemesis 
that  has  followed  on  the  heels  of  our  unfulfilled 
duties.  They  do  not  represent  the  rebellion  of  rea- 
son, but  it  is  a  rebellion  with  a  reason,  for  it  has  not 
been  caused  by  dislike  to  the  truth  of  God,  but  by 
the  inaction  or  impotence  of  His  churches."  Then, 
turning  to  the  great  and  fruitful  idea  of  religion, 
the  vital  truths  and  realities  of  faith,  they  will  ask, 
^'' What  do  they  mean  for  life?  what  message  have 
they  to  the  multitudes  of  men  who  toil  and  spin,  and 
how  are  we  to  build  up  in  the  world,  and  in  view  of 
man  and  mankind,  a  state,  a  society  that,  in  all  its 
parts,  shall  express  and  declare  the  great  ideal  of  a 
city  of  God,  a  society  in  harmony  with  His  spirit 
and  mind  ? " 

Now,  my  attempt  hitherto  has  been  to  bring  out 
the  principles  and  qualities  in  religion  as  an  idea, 
and  in  the  religions  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ments, creative  of  a  happier  order,  contributory  to  a 
wealthier  state,  and  a  more  progressive  society;  and 
I  wish  to*night,  to  try  to  discover  how  the  Christian 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        173 

religion,  even  in  its  earliest  birth,  has  affected  these 
same  great  forces,  and  worked  towards  these  great 
purposes  and  ends. 

Let  me  begin  then,  by  simply  stating  that  it  is 
here  necessary  to  look  at  the  Christian  religion  from 
three  points  of  view.  1.  As  regards  some  of  the  dis- 
tinctive notes  or  qualities  it  possessed  at  its  birth,  or 
on  its  appearance  in  the  world.  2.  At  the  way  in 
which  the  Christian  societies  were  affected  by  certain 
old  Pagan  and  Judaic  ideas;  and  3.  At  the  way  in 
which,  in  spite  of  these,  the  Christian  truths  or  ideas 
so  worked  through  the  Christian  Societies  as  to  affect 
for  good  the  common  life  of  man,  our  industrial  and 
economical  systems,  and  our  toiling  men  and  multi- 
tudes. 


Now,  you  will  note,  beginning  with  the  first,  that 
Christianity  at  its  birth  stood  a  centre  of  new  ideas, 
a  circle  of  great  and  splendid  beliefs.  Some  of  these, 
cardinal  and  central  for  our  question,  were  exhibited 
in  the  previous  lecture.  Those  meant  specially  con- 
cerned the  new  ideas  of  God,  of  man,  and  of  the 
method  of  reconciling  God  and  man.  These  were 
such  as  to  make  man  the  glorious  vehicle  or  organ 
for  fulfilling  or  carrying  out  to  completion  the  divine 
purpose  or  plan  in  history.  Growing  directly  out 
of  those  ideas,  or  truths,  or  beliefs,  came  these 
qualities : — 

1.  Christianity  was  a  universal,  not  a  national 
religion.  As  universal,  it  was  something  generically 
new,  absolutely  unlike  all  that  had  been  before,  or 


174  Religion  in  History. 

were  around.  A  universal  religion  is  a  religion 
capable  of  living  anywhere  and  everjrwhere,  suited 
to  men  of  all  classes  and  in  all  stages  of  their 
development,  capable  of  satisfying  the  largest,  yet 
of  stooping  to  the  meanest  nature;  yet  able  so  to  fill 
the  nature  as  to  make  it  dissatisfied  with  its  attain- 
ment, ever  craving  after  something  nobler  and  higher. 
A  universal  is  more  than  a  missionary  religion.  It 
must  be  missionary,  but  all  missionary  are  not 
universal  religions.  Buddhism  is  missionary,  yet  we 
can  see  this,  that  it  so  hates  life,  it  so  hates  society, 
it  so  dislikes  whatever  tends  to  create  an  order  that 
shall  prolong  and  lift  the  life  of  humanity,  as  to  act 
as  a  sort  of  paralysis  of  progress,  as  to  produce  a 
sort  of  general  collapse  in  all  the  more  progressive 
and  ameliorative  agencies  of  time.  Islam  is  mission- 
ary, but  then  it  spreads  not  simply  by  power,  but 
so  as  to  deprave  the  civilized,  as  to  lower  the  higher 
and  nobler  races.  A  universal  religion  must  be  one 
that  can  help  man  ever  forward,  enlarge  his  nature, 
give  him  for  ever  the  idea  that  far  as  he  has  come  he 
has  yet  an  infinite  path  to  travel  to  a  higher  and 
nobler  perfection. 

Now  the  universalism  of  Christianity  rose  out  of 
its  cardinal  ideas.  The  one  God  made  mankind  one. 
One  God  and  one  humanity  could  be  expressed  only 
by  one  religion.  Now,  mark,  that  was  at  first  an  un- 
intelligible idea.  To  the  early  world  all  religions 
were  local.  Zeus  could  not  be  understood  out  of 
Greece,  Jupiter  could  not  be  understood  out  of  Rome. 
The  Roman  might  carry  his  faith  with  him,  but  it 
was  bound  up  with  the  being  of  his  state,  with  the 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries,        115 

idea  of  his  city.  No  man  can  be  a  Brahman  out  of 
India.  If  he  comes  here  he  loses  so  much  of  his 
Brahmanism  that  he  has  to  be  purged  and  purified 
at  his  return.  There  was  not  then,  as  there  is  not 
now,  any  religion,  but  the  religion  of  Christ  that 
possessed  universalism,  that  could  be  anywhere  by 
any  man  believed  and  obeyed,  and  that  tended  to 
embrace  all  men  in  a  glorious  unity.  That  made  it 
a  most  insoluble  problem,  a  strange  anomaly,  to  men 
possessed  of  the  older  ideas,  and  many  a  great 
historian  and  thinker  stood  puzzled  and  helpless 
before  the  notion  that  a  faith  could  be  universal,  that 
there  could  be  a  religion  expressing  faith  in  one  God, 
one  Humanity,  and  one  great  Mediator  between 
them. 

2.  The  second  distinctive  note  was  spiritual.  It 
was  purely  spiritual,  alike  as  regards  its  matter  and 
its  independence  of  all  outer  and  local  forms.  Every 
old  religion,  as  has  been  explained,  had  its  temples, 
its  priests,  its  hierarchy,  its  augurs,  its  processions, 
its  sacrifices,  the  varied  signs  and  symbols  by  which 
externally  it  lived.  But  now  here  was  the  wonderful 
anomaly.  Christ  was  no  priest,  appointed  no  man  a 
priest,  erected  no  temple,  established  no  ritual,  laid 
down  no  law  of  sacrifice,  enjoined  no  sacrifice  but 
the  sacrifice  of  clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart,  a  holy 
and  noble  life  unto  God.  Now  its  independence  of 
all  sacerdotal  forms  made  His  religion  a  greater 
anomaly  than  its  Founder,  more  wonderful,  less  in- 
telligible. That  it  should  be  without  a  priest,  with- 
out a  priesthood,  without  an  altar,  without  a  temple 
for  a  home;  made  it  seem  to  the  ancient  Greeks, 


1*76  Religion  in  History. 

Romans,  and  Jews,  a  religion? — nay,  an  atheism,  an 
utter  denial  of  all  religious  belief.  And  so,  why 
were  the  Christians  condemned  to  the  lions?  Why 
were  they  forced  to  the  amphitheatre?  They  were 
said  to  be  Atheists,  men  profane,  without  God,  while 
in  truth,  they  were  so  spiritually  religious  that  the 
unspiritual  religions  could  not  understand  them.  And 
bigoted,  intolerant,  as  all  heathen  religions  were,  the 
Roman  doomed  the  Christians,  as  men  godless  and 
atheistic,  to  the  stake. 

But  not  only  so;  the  religion  was  independent 
of  all  political  organizations,  all  hierarchical  and 
graduated  orders.  By  that  I  mean  this — the  polities 
now  thought  so  cardinal  to  the  religion  had  no 
existence  in  its  purest  and  most  historical  form,  the 
primitive  state  of  the  religion  as  it  issued  from  the 
mind  of  its  Founder  and  the  hands  of  His  apostles. 
Men  say,  Christianity  is  papacy.  Nay,  papacy  was 
fatal  to  many  things  in  the  cardinal  Christian  idea. 
The  father  is  an  excellent  authority  when  his  family 
are  children;  but  once  the  family  is  grown  they  must 
not  be  treated  as  infants.  Papacy  making  men 
spiritual  infants  stands  in  the  way  of  the  realization 
of  the  highest  Christian  idea,  which  is  essentially  the 
religion  of  manhood,  and  speaks  to  men  as  men. 
And  as  with  papacy,  so  with  all  hierarchical  forms. 
They  were  later,  they  did  not  belong  to  the  early 
Church.  The  earliest  was  a  society  where  men 
taught,  men  learned  and  lived,  each  after  his  own 
kind.  The  man  who  believed  became  a  member  of 
Christ.  Becoming  a  member  of  Christ,  he  became  a 
worker  for  man;  and  those  little  communities  that 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        17 1 

rose  in  those  ancient  cities  that  stood  round  the  tide- 
less  Mediterranean,  what  were  they,  every  one  of 
them,  but  missionary  societies  formed  of  men  who 
lived  in  the  most  devoted  way  for  man,  to  cure  his 
sorrow,  to  heal  his  misery,  to  help  his  sin,  to  bring 
all  into  holier  relations  to  God?  The  abolition  of  the 
old  sacerdotalism  was  the  creation  of  a  grand 
spiritual  religion  formed  from  heaven. 

3.  That  brings  us  to  the  third  great  quality. 
The  religion  was  a  religion  creative  and  regulative 
of  a  new  life,  both  individual  and  collective.  Now, 
as  has  been  stated  over  and  over  again,  the  ancient 
religions  did  not  pretend  to  give  a  moral  law,  directive 
of  personal  and  social  and  civil  life.  The  moralist 
was  never  the  priest,  he  was  always  the  philosopher. 
No  man  did  good  because  his  religion  bound  him. 
No,  it  was  only  the  maxims  of  the  schools  that  could 
direct  and  teach.  If  you  Tyant  to  find  the  highest 
ideal  of  morality  in  Pagan  times,  where  do  you  go? 
Certainly  not  to  the  oracles,  certainly  not  to  the 
mysteries,  certainly  not  to  the  priesthoods.  Nay, 
but  you  go  to  the  academy,  to  the  porch,  or  to  the 
grove,  and  say  to  Plato,  or  Zeno,  or  Aristotle, 
'^  Teach  me  how  to  regulate  my  life."  And  as  there 
was  no  morality  connected  with  the  religion,  so  the 
gods  did  not  concern  themselves  about  morality.  A 
Pagan  moralist  could  say,  '^The  gods  give  me  life 
and  fortune,  but  a  cheerful,  contented  spirit  I  secure 
for  myself"  Or  he  could  say,  '^  The  gods  send  war 
and  pestilence,  and  wc  offer  sacrifices  to  propitiate 
their  wrath;  but  the  virtuous  man  is  suflScient  for 
himself,  he  needs  no  help  of  the  gods." 


178  Religion  in  History, 

Now  the  result  was  inevitable;  where  religion  had 
no  concern  with  morality,  morality  could  draw  from  it 
no  inspiration.  But  when  Christ  appeared,  these 
were  bound  together  in  indissoluble  marriage,  the 
highest  moral  principle  iwid  the  highest  religious 
faith  were  united  in  eternal  alliance.  And  the  result 
was  seen  at  once;  first  in  this:  man  was  placed  in 
the  centre  of  new  moral  forces,  new  moral  forces 
were  placed  within  the  man.  Then  happened  a 
wonderful  thing.  Where  the  schools  had  been  power- 
less, Christianity  became  powerful,  and  men  who 
never  felt  the  inspiration  to  a  good  and  noble  life 
felt  it  now. 

And,  as  a  second  result,  the  virtues  were  univer- 
salized. If  you  had  wished  to  scandalize  an  ancient 
philosopher,  you  could  not  have  done  it  more  effectu- 
ally than  by  associating  him  with  the  unlettered,  with 
the  people.  Celsus,  the  great  assailant  of  the  Christian 
faith,  held  up  the  Christians  to  scorn  because  they 
were  unlettered  men,  slaves,  cobblers,  weavers,  men 
who  were  not  equal  to  stand  in  an  Academy,  or  speak 
in  elegant  Greek.  But  therein  lay  its  power,  it  took 
the  poor,  the  outcast,  the  despised,  and  it  made  them 
more  moral  than  the  schools  had  made  the  philo- 
sophers. You  will  get  many  a  beautiful  proverb  in 
Seneca,  you  will  get  many  a  fine  ethical  principle  in 
Plato,  you  will  find  in  Stoicism  some  of  the  most 
exalted  precepts  that  human  ethics  have  ever  known. 
But  mark  you  one  thing,  you  will  never  discover  that 
these  elevated  the  common  life  of  man,  affected  the 
course  of  lust,  made  the  bad  good,  or  the  impure 
holy.    Where  they  failed,  Christ  succeeded  with 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        179 

splendid,  glorious  success;  He  made  out  of  the  very 
outcasts  men  that  became  saints  to  God. 

And  then  followed  a  third  thing.     Virtues  new 
and  beautiful  were  created.     Now  I  don't  mean  to 
compare  the  Greek  ''Eros,"  the  Latin  ''Amor,"  and 
the  Christian  "Love."     The  man  who  knows  classic 
life  knows  that  the  distance  between  these  is  an  in- 
finite distance.     Love,  what   did  it  signify  to  the 
ancient  world  but  a  form  of  lust,  or  what  at  best 
carried  with  it  every  connotation  of  passion  and  its 
pain?     But  Love,  what  does  it  become  to  Christian 
man?     Read  that  wonderful  chapter  which  stands  as 
the  xiii.  of  first  Corinthians,  the  glorious  descrip- 
tion ol  Christian  love,  the  power  that  can  inspire, 
can  regulate,  can  ennoble  man,  making  him  live  for 
his  fellows  the  wide  world  over.     Or  take  another 
thing,  take  the  tenderness  it  brought  into  life,  of 
man  to 'woman,  of  strong  to  weak.     There  is   no 
grander  ancient  character  than  Socrates,  beautiful 
character  he   is   in   many    a   way.      He,    citizen, 
thinker,    teacher,    plying    that   wondrous   dialectic 
craft   of  his  in  the  streets  of  Athens,  is   a   form 
attractive  to  all  eyes.     And  he  is  so  attractive  be- 
cause he  stands   out  from   among  the   crowd   the 
creator  of  a  new   moral  ideal,  at   once   stronger, 
higher,  and   more  humane  than  the  old   epic   and 
heroic   ideal   embodied   in   the    Homeric  Achilles. 
But  now,  look   how   over   against   him  stands   the 
image  of  Xanthippe,  his  wife.     She  has  had  hard 
measure  dealt  to  her;  his  contemporaries  and  his- 
torians have  made  her  seem  one  who  led  the  poor 
philosopher  a  hardish  life,  and  have  made  her  the 


180  Religion  in  History, 

type  of  a  woman  who  makes  life  not  pleasant  to  the 
man  that  has  wedded  her.  And  many  a  dry-as- 
dust  commentator  has  grown  somewhat  humorous 
over  the  sweet  relief  that  death  brought  to  Socrates 
when  it  saved  him  from  Xanthippe. 

But  if  you  examine  the  simple  truth  as  it  stands  in 
history,  that  woman  has  no  right  to  be  so  rated j  the 
man,  on  the  other  hand,  reason  to  be  rated  most 
soundly.  His  love  is  all  for  the  state  and  not  for  the 
home,  marriage  is  for  him  only  a  convenient  institu- 
tion, carrying  with  it  no  duties  of  living  affection,  of 
mutual  helpfulness  and  cheerful  intercourse,  and  his 
conduct  was  but  too  good  an  exponent  of  his 
opinions.  He  cultivated  an  admiring  friendship  for 
Aspasia,  but  he  had  only  the  coldest  neglect  for  poor 
Xanthippe.  His  duties  are  all  to  Athens  and  Greece, 
and  not  at  all  to  home.  He  puns,  questions,  teaches 
for  the  good  of  philosophy  and  the  state,  but  she  has 
to  provide  for  their  children.  She  goes  to  him  in 
the  hour  of  death,  grieved,  distressed  in  a  woman's 
way,  and  he  sits  as  in  the  Phaedo,  sublimely  dis- 
coursing with  his  friends.  When  she  comes  he  never 
feels  a  bit  the  loss  to  her,  they  do  not  feel  the  pain 
to  the  woman  and  to  the  children;  nay,  it  is  going 
to  trouble  the  serenity  of  the  philosopher  to  see  the 
woman  who  was  his  wife,  and  the  children  she  had 
borne  him.  And  they  send  her  away  with  no  word 
of  comfort,  with  scorn  rather  than  with  cheer. 
There  now  stands  out  clear  and  distinct  one  of 
the  great  differences  the  religion  of  Christ  brought 
in,  it  brought  in  the  spirit  of  love,  made  the  weak 
dependent  on  the  strong,  made  the  strong  thought- 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        181 

ful  of  the  weak,  made  the  man  in  his  might,  in  his 
manhood,  with  all  the  rights  of  manhood  upon  him, 
be  to  the  weak  generous,  and  to  the  dependent 
noble.  There  is  but  one  phase  of  its  action  in  univer- 
salizing and  creating  a  higher  virtue,  and  so  purify- 
ing and  perfecting  the  whole  notion  of  society. 
The  state  of  life  built  up  in  harmony  with  these  prin- 
ciples, according  to  these  great  ideals,  could  not  but 
be  a  kindlier,  nobler,  humaner  state. 

4.  Imagine,  then,  Christianity  launched  on  the 
stream.  It  has  those  features  we  have  sketched, 
and  how  has  it  to  live  and  do  its  work?  By  means 
of  the  preacher,  the  teacher,  the  man  that  persuades 
the  reason.  That,  too,  made  it  something  new.  A 
man  like  Gibbon  has  represented  the  old  religions  as 
tolerant.  I  stand  here  to  say  that  no  ancient  religion 
was  tolerant,  or  could  be  tolerant.  It  was  in  the 
heart  of  it  a  narrow  nationalism,  and  it  could  allow 
to  live  within  the  nation  only  the  men  that  supported 
it.  Why  was  Socrates  done  to  death?  Religion,  as 
the  ancients  understood  it,  persecuted  him  thereto. 
Or  why  was  Protagoras  banished  from  Athens,  in 
spite  of  the  friendship  and  protection  of  Pericles,  the 
most  illustrious  statesman  of  Athens  in  her  most 
illustrious  age?  Because  he  had  ventured,  in  a 
treatise  on  the  gods,  to  say,  '^  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  gods  do  or  do  not  exist."  To  express  such  a 
doubt  was  to  become  liable  to  the  last  penalty;  and 
Protagoras  preferred  exile  to  death.  But,  perhaps, 
you  may  think  Rome  better  than  Greece.  Well, 
take  Maecenas,  the  man  Horace  so  greatly  praises, 
and  get  at  his  advice  to  Augustus.     What  does  he 


182  Beligion  in  History. 

say  ?  He  tells  Augustus  that  whatever  he  tolerates  he 
is  not  to  tolerate  alien  religions,  he  is  not  to  allow  his 
people  to  break  from  the  ancient  faith.  But  it  may 
be  thought,  this  man  was  no  true  Roman  and  lover  of 
liberty,  rather  he  was  the  friend  and  admirer  of  the  new 
emperor,  advising  him  how  best  to  found  a  despotism 
on  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  freedom.  Let  us  appeal, 
then,  to  Cicero,  and  we  find  him  in  his  treatise  on 
Laws  saying,  that  no  man  shall  be  allowed  to  worship 
any  gods  except  those  publicly  recognized  by  law; 
or  let  us  ask  the  distinguished  Roman  jurist,  Julius 
Paulus,  what  he  understands  to  be  the  law  on  this 
matter?  and  he  explicitly  enough  answers,  ''Who- 
ever introduces  new  and  unknown  religions,  by  which 
the  minds  of  men  may  be  disturbed,  are,  if  belonging 
to  the  higher  ranks,  to  be  banished,  but  if  to  the  lower, 
they  are  to  receive  the  penalty  of  death."  These 
principles  of  Roman  law  made  the  persecution  of  the 
Christians  not  only  legal,  but  necessary;  and  they 
stood  associated  with  the  fundamental  idea  and 
condition  of  the  Roman  state.  To  doubt  the  state 
religion,  was  to  doubt  the  right  of  the  state  to  be, 
its  right  to  make  and  administer  its  own  laws.  The 
state  was  above  the  religion  and  made  it,  above  the 
gods  and  decreed  their  worship;  and  so  it  was  but 
legal  and  natural  that  the  emperor,  as  the  head  and 
symbol  of  the  Roman  state,  should  be  declared  divine, 
and  that  all  men  should  be  held  bound  to  worship 
and  believe  as  he  determined  and  decreed. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  radically  Christianity  stood 
here  opposed  to  all  the  old  religions.  It  worked  by 
persuasion,  its  great  instrument  was  speech.     It  did 


Meligion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        183 

not  seek  to  live  by  the  protection  or  help  of  the  state, 
but  wished  to  penetrate  as  truth  and  love  the  mind 
and  heart  of  man.  It  did  not  ask  the  laws  to  favour 
it,  asked  only  to  be  allowed  to  live  and  work  in 
its  own  way.  And  so  what  is  it  we  see  when  it 
first  appears  on  the  great  stage  of  history?  We 
see  that  it  comes  and  appeals  to  reason,  it  speaks 
to  intellect,  it  tries  to  persuade  spirit.  The  man 
that  goes  out  and  preaches  stands,  where?  On 
Mars  Hill,  and  reasons  with  the  philosophers.  The 
man  that  goes  to  Corinth,  does  what?  Preaches,  and 
preaches  that  he  may  convert  and  change.  It  is  as 
a  power  living  by  speech,  living  by  persuasion,  that 
Christianity  begins  to  be.  When  it  has  persuaded, 
what  does  it  require?  That  a  man  live  a  life  holy 
unto  God.  Mark  this,  that  where  the  old  religions 
placed  animal,  the  new  religion  placed  spiritual  sacri- 
fices. Men  were  to  offer  their  spirits,  their  bodies, 
their  living  souls  unto  God.  Where  the  old  religions 
placed  outer  service,  the  new  religion  placed  purity, 
peace,  faith,  hope,  love,  service  of  kind.  While  the 
old  religions  stood  in  subordination  to  the  state, 
the  new  stood  in  supremacy  over  man,  was  a  moral 
law  over  him,  and  so  over  any  society  into  which 
he  might  be  gathered.  All  was  changed,  and  every 
man  it  reached  became  a  great  factor  of  change,  a 
means  of  making  a  new  humanity,  a  whole  world  new. 

II. 

1.  Well,  now,  passing  from  these  distinctive  notes 
or  features  of  the  new  religion,  I  would  notice  two  of 


184  Religion  in  History. 

the  ways  in  which  the  old  Pagan  and  Jewish  ideas 
affected  and  changed  it.  The  first  of  these  was  the 
way  in  which  the  old  sacerdotal  ideas  came  back. 
Remember,  it  is  one  thing  for  a  truth  to  be  revealed, 
another  thing  for  it  to  be  understood.  It  takes 
centuries  before  the  mind  of  man  grasps  the  meaning 
of  a  great  truth.  It  takes  centuries  more  before  he 
is  able  to  express  it  in  outward  action.  Consider 
the  situation;  for  ages  the  world  had  been  accustomed 
to  religions  with  priests,  with  sacrifices,  with  temples. 
The  Jews  had  a  priesthood,  a  temple,  a  ritual  at  once 
extensive  and  minute;  all  the  Pagans  had  the  same. 
Now  when  they  came  to  think  of  Christianity,  even 
after  they  had  become  Christian,  the  old  elements  in 
their  minds  were  in  some  respects  stronger  than  the 
new.  They  could  not  easily  conceive  a  religion 
without  those  modes  and  orders  which  had  seemed 
the  very  essence  of  all  the  religions  they  knew,  and  so 
they  proceeded,  though  all  unconsciously,  to  translate 
the  new  back  into  the  old.  And  so  they  thought  of 
the  apostle,  of  the  prophet,  or  the  presbyter  as  a 
priest;  and  they  could  not  think  of  a  priest  without 
thinking  of  a  sacrifice;  and  they  could  not  think  of  a 
sacrifice  without  thinking  of  a  temple;  and  so  old 
Pagan  ideas  came  back  and  held,  for  many  a  drear 
century,  sway  within  the  Christian  Church. 

It  is  not  possible  here  either  to  trace  the  history 
of  the  change  or  fully  explain  its  nature  and  effects. 
But  let  us  try  to  weigh  a  fact  or  two.  In  the  earliest 
Christian  literature,  apostolic  and  post-apostolic,  no 
man  who  bears  office  in  the  Church  is  called  a  priest. 
In  it  there  was  no  official  priesthood,  and  none  of 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        185 

the  signs  and  rites  associated  with  one.  The  men  who 
held  office  were  called  either  apostles,  or  prophets, 
or  evangelists,  or  pastors,  or  teachers,  or  elders,  or 
ministers,  or  overseers,  but  never  priests.  About  the 
end  of  the  second  century,  however,  that  fateful  name 
begins  to  appear.  A  great  Latin  father,  Tertullian, 
speaks  of  ' '  the  sacerdotal  order, "  and  calls  the  bishop 
priest,  and  even  high  priest,  though  he  was  far  enough 
from  allowing  priesthood  in  any  sense  that  denied 
the  spiritual  priesthood  of  universal  Christian  men. 
Half  a  century  later  another  writer,  Cyprian,  makes 
quite  a  strong  claim  on  behalf  of  an  official  priest- 
hood, and  shows  us  just  beginning  the  change  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  from  a  simple  feast  of  love  and 
remembrance  into  a  sacrificial  ceremony.  Now,  once 
a  change  like  this  begins  it  proceeds  rapidly,  and  the 
further  it  proceeds  the  more  disastrous  it  becomes.  It 
forced  into  Christianity  many  of  the  limitations  and 
much  of  the  materialism  of  Judaism  and  paganism. 
In  the  apostolic  days  every  Christian  man  was  a 
priest,  with  the  right  to  approach  God  when  and 
where  he  pleased;  but  this  neo-heathenism  tended 
to  give,  and  ultimately  gave,  the  official  priest  the 
right  to  stand  between  God  and  man,  distributing 
the  grace  of  the  one,  granting  or  denying  access  or 
pardon  to  the  other.  In  the  religion  of  Christ,  no 
place  was  sacred  or  necessary  to  the  worship  of  the 
Father,  the  one  thing  needful  was  the  pure  and  true 
spirit;  but  the  renascent  sacerdotalism  created  a 
whole  new  order  of  sacred  persons,  places,  ceremonies, 
acts,  which  had  to  be  respected  if  the  worship  was  to 
be  approved.    The  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament 


186  Religion  in  History. 

was  a  religion  inward  and  spiritual,  all  its  virtues  were 
those  of  the  believing,  meek,  true  and  loving  spirit; 
but  the  Christianity  of  the  priesthood  and  their 
church  became  outward  and  material,  consisted  in 
things  the  priesthood  could  prescribe  and  regulate, 
rather  than  the  obedience  commanded  and  approved 
of  God.  You  will  see  at  once  how  this  affected  the 
religion  and  modified  its  action.  It  was  then  as 
always,  the  truth  of  God  had  to  wrestle  with  the 
ignorance  and  sin  and  imperfection  of  man.  These 
cannot  be  expelled  by  mechanical  forces,  only  by 
moral  means,  and  the  conquests  of  moral  agencies 
are  slow,  but  in  the  process  the  nature  of  man  is 
uplifted  and  renewed.  His  nature  affected  the 
religion,  but  it  more  mightily  afiected  his  nature. 
What  was  of  God  prevailed. 

2.  Then  there  was  a  second  class  of  influences 
which  we  may  describe  as  political.  Men,  as 
accustomed  to  a  great  state  and  religion  as  bound 
up  with  it,  thought  that  apart  from  the  forms  of  the 
state  it  could  not  be.  So  the  result  was  that  both  in 
East  and  West,  the  state  and  the  church  tended  to 
draw  nearer  and  nearer  in  political  form  and  idea  to 
each  other.  It  was  an  ill  moment  when  Constantino 
took  over  his  idea  of  Pontifex  Maximus  into  the 
church.  The  old  emperor  had  been  supreme  priest, 
the  new  emperor  in  the  new  religion  tried  to  become 
the  same.  That  either  gave  to  the  church  a  master, 
or,  by  turning  the  church  into  an  organized  state, 
with  its  hierarchies  and  graded  orders,  created  the 
political  interests  and  ambitions  which  made  the 
church  try  to  be  master  over  the  state.     In  the  East 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries,        187 

the  state  remained  master,  and  we  see  the  result  in 
Athanasius  banished  from  his  see  at  the  fiat  of  an 
emperor,  or  recalled  when  the  emperor  so  willed. 
Or  we  see  it  in  the  great  Chrysostom,  when  he 
dared  to  rebuke  the  vice  of  an  unclean  or  impure 
court,  banished  by  Arcadius,  a  tool  in  the  hands  of 
the  vengeful  Eudoxia.  In  the  West  there  was  the 
opposite  process,  where  the  church,  developing  into 
a  mighty  state,  became  a  mighty  power,  seeking  to 
control  in  its  own  interest  all  the  secular  policies. 
It  may  have  ofttimes  stood  on  the  side  of  order, 
nay,  in  its  earliest  days  it  almost  always  so  stood. 
But  so  vast  a  departure  from  the  old  original  idea 
made  the  religion  less  potent  for  good  than  in  its 
pure  and  primitive  days.  Yet,  in  spite  of  the  return 
of  the  old  sacerdotal,  of  the  old  political  or  civil 
idea.  Christian  truth  lived.  Christian  thought  worked, 
and  there  distilled  into  society  through  the  Chris- 
tian Church  great  ameliorative  principles  which 
were  operative  for  good. 


III. 


Now  this  brings  us  to  the  point  where  we  must 
consider  the  action,  even  as  so  qualified,  of  Chris- 
tian ideas,  truths,  or  beliefs,  on  the  prosperity  and 
happiness  of  man.  And  I  am  anxious  that  this 
should  be  considered  in  relation,  simply  and  purely, 
to  the  great  industrial  and  economical  questions. 

1.  Well,  then,  I  will  ask  you  to  consider  as  a  first 
step  the  state  of  the  world  as  regards  its  social  and 
economical  condition  when   Christianity  appeared. 


188  Beligion  in  History, 

And  I  will  take  it  at  its  most  favourable    point, 

as  it  existed  in  Rome.     Now  Rome  was  a   great 

city,  it  was  the  mistress  of  the  world;  the  tribute 

of  all  places  flowed  into  it.      The  Roman  was    a 

sturdy  and  stern  man,  proud  of  his  great  history, 

vain  of  his  eternal  city,  remembering  his  republican 

virtues,  and  glorying  in  his  past.     What,  then,  was 

the  state  of  Rome,   the  highest   point  of   ancient 

civilization,    in  the  first    century   of  the  Christian 

era?     Here  I  want  working  men  to  listen,  for  I  wish 

to  speak  purely  and  simply  from  the  standpoint  of 

one  who  believes  that  economical,   industrial,   and 

social  questions  are  questions  of  religion,  and  who 

wishes  to  regard  them  altogether  as  such.     Well, 

the  population  of  Rome,  if  we  are  to  take  Mommsen, 

the  greatest  of  all  its  historians  in  recent  times,  as 

our  authority,  was,  in  the  first  century,  1,610,000. 

How  was  it  composed?     There  were  10,000  senators 

and  knights,    60,000    foreigners,    20,000    garrison, 

320,000  free  citizens,  300,000  women  and  children, 

and  900,000  slaves.     Mark  that: — about  three-fifths 

of  the  population  of  Rome  were  slaves.     That  is  one 

fact. 

(a)  Now  consider  how  the  slaves  afiected  in- 
dustrial and  social  economics.  You  will  notice  in 
the  first  place,  that  these  slaves  were  the  absolute 
property  of  the  master;  he  could  do  with  them  as 
you  can  do  at  this  moment  with  your  dog.  Nay, 
your  dog  has  more  rights  than  a  Roman  slave  had. 
For  English  law  has  grown  so  tender  that  it  protects 
even  the  animal  from  the  cruelty  of  man;  but  Roman 
law  did  not  so  protect  the  slave.  Take,  for  example, 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        189 

a  case  like  that  of  Flaminius,  who,  when  a  gay  young 
friend  said  ho  had  never  seen  a  man  in  the  agonies 
of  death,  had  a  slave  killed  to  show  him  what  he 
wished.  Or  take  the  case  of  Pollio,  who  liked  delicate 
lampreys,  and  fed  them  with  his  slaves.  Or  take 
cases  such  as  that  of  Cato  the  elder  dealing  with 
his  slaves  as  cattle,  mere  tools  for  the  creation  of 
wealth,  to  be  broken  or  sold  when  useless.  They 
were  things,  chattels,  and  no  man  who  was  a  Roman 
citizen  need  care  what  happened  to  them. 

(/5)  But  now  there  is  another  and  no  less  pertinent 
question,  how  did  slavery  affect  labour?  Well,  you 
perceive  all  labour  was  done  by  slaves;  trade  and 
labour  were  altogether  in  the  hands  of  the  wealthy, 
but  in  a  peculiar  way:  the  rich  who  owned  the  land, 
owned  the  slaves,  and  through  their  slaves  conducted 
trade.  We  know  well  what  the  conflict  between  la- 
bour and  capital  means.  Yes,  and  with  us  labour  can 
often  hold  its  own ;  but  there  was  no  conflict  between  la- 
bour and  capital  then,  for  labour  was  capital,  all 
slaves  were  capital,  men  that  worked  for  the  masters, 
and  the  owners  reaped  the  profit.  Many  a  man 
tilled  his  farm  by  slaves  working  chained  in  gangs. 
Many  a  man  conducted  a  vast  business  by  slaves, 
who  made  the  profit  and  handed  it  to  him.  Many 
a  man  produced  the  raw  material,  manufactured  it, 
carried  it,  and  sold  it, — all  by  means  of  his  slaves; 
theirs  being  the  labour,  and  his  the  reward.  And 
the  scale  on  which  the  richest  Romans  could  do 
business  of  this  kind  may  be  judged  from  the  fact 
that  some  had  as  many  as  10,000  slaves,  and  even 
20,000  was  not  an  unknown  number.     The  work, 


190  Religion  in  History. 

then,  of  the  Capital  was  done  by  these  900,000 
slaves,  and  so  the  wealth  of  Rome  was  gathered  into 
the  hands  of  the  few  thousand  men  who  owned 
them;  and  everywhere,  except  for  these  few  thousand 
men,  there  was  deep  poverty,  and  within  the  poverty 
there  was  a  slavery  of  a  deeper  and  darker  kind 
still. 

{y)  But  there  is  a  third  question,  which  has  an 
even  more  significant  light  to  shed  on  the  temper  and 
state  of  the  time.  Whence  came  the  supply  of 
slaves  ?  Kome  could  not  of  herself  have  produced 
and  maintained  so  extraordinary  a  number;  they 
were  in  large  part  the  fruits  of  conquest.  I  said  the 
tribute  of  the  world  flowed  into  Rome,  and  slaves 
were  the  tribute  of  the  vanquished.  If  a  Roman 
army  conquered  a  province,  or  defeated  another 
army,  the  captives,  if  they  were  not  butchered  in 
cold  blood,  were  sent  to  Rome,  to  be  sold  as  slaves. 
And  here  let  me  ask,  and  then  leave  you  to  answer, 
a  simple  question,  yet  one  of  profoundest  moral 
import: — ^^  Is  it  possible  to  calculate  the  degree  in 
which  this  way  of  handling  the  conquered  must  have 
depraved  the  conquerors? " 

2.  But  now  we  must  study  the  social  and  ethical 
effects  of  this  system.  How  did  the  multitude  of 
slaves  affect  the  320,000  free  citizens?  Where 
work,  labour,  trade,  was  the  mark  and  sign  of  bond- 
age, with  these  no  freeman  could  soil  his  hands.  He 
could  not  labour,  labour  was  a  thing  for  slaves,  and 
slaves  alone.  And  so  these  320,000  were  idle,  or 
they  were  worse  than  idle,  the  pimps,  the  buffoons, 
the  men  that  lived  to  cstter  by  crime  for  the  pleasures 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        191 

of  those  who  could  afford  to  buy.  But  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  when  productive  industry  was  so  little 
cultivated,  the  citizens  who  despised  labor  had  to  be 
maintained  by  the  emperor  at  the  public  expense. 
The  feeding  of  these  citizens  was  a  great  problem. 
The  grain  ships  from  all  the  provinces  came  to 
Rome,  and  every  citizen  had  his  right  to  so  much 
grain,  and,  as  a  rule,  rich  or  poor  took  it.  How 
many  of  you  that  could  earn  your  bread  would  take 
help  raised  by  a  poor-tax,  in  a  word,  parochial  re- 
lief? What  man,  earning  a  good  salary,  would  be 
so  mean  as  to  go  and  get  his  parochial  allowance? 
Yet  what  was  parochial  allowance  in  its  very  worst 
form  was  taken  by  almost  every  man  of  these  Roman 
citizens.  And  this  dependency  of  the  citizen  on  the 
government  vitiated  both,  as  this  may  illustrate: 
whenever  an  emperor  came  to  power,  or  any  fortunate 
event  happened,  he  had  to  distribute  great  largesses; 
he  sat  in  his  seat,  he  remained  emperor  only  by 
keeping  the  multitude  sweet  and  well-inclined  to  him, 
and  they  were  well-inclined  only  when  paid,  and  well 
paid;  and  they  often  transferred  their  allegiance 
from  the  man  that  paid  ill  to  the  man  that  paid  well. 
And  so  a  Nero,  and  a  Domitian,  and  a  Caligula  could 
reign,  though  each  was  shameful  to  his  kind,  because 
they  not  only  were  supported  by  the  legionaries,  but 
condescended  to  pay  well  the  citizens  who  were  too 
proud  to  work,  but  not  too  proud  to  live  as  beggarly 
dependents  on  an  evil  emperor. 

But  there  were  other  and  no  less  inevitable  results. 
If  you  wish  to  keep  a  people  sweet,  you  must  not 
only  feed  them;  if  they  have  no  work  to  do  you  must 


192  Religion  in  History. 

amuse  them,  and  the  amusing  is  the  harder  and  more 
arduous  thing.  And  how  did  the  great  Roman  em- 
perors amuse  their  men?  Why,  they  built  splendid 
amphitheatres  in  every  Roman  city,  most  of  all  in 
imperial  Rome.  There  the  ruins  may  still  be  viewed. 
Look  at  that  mighty  Colosseum,  capable  of  seating 
87,000  people.  Think  what  it  means.  It  means 
that  an  emperor  had  a  people  so  idle,  that  he  not 
only  had  to  maintain  them,  but  to  amuse  them. 
And  what  were  the  amusements?  Whole  rows  of 
gladiators,  men,  or  even  ungentle  women,  met  there, 
with  knife,  shield,  and  sword,  to  fight,  row  upon  row, 
and  unto  death.  And  ofttimes,  when  the  weaker 
went  down,  he  might  look  his  look  of  pity  that  cried 
for  mercy.  But  there,  in  the  crowded  benches,  the 
empress  and  many  another  dainty  dame  would  put 
down  their  thumbs,  which  meant,  ^'No  mercy;  do 
him  to  death!"  And  if  they  did  not  fight  man  to 
man,  then  they  fought  man  and  beast,  lion,  tiger, 
bear,  sometimes  the  man  defenceless,  sometimes  the 
man  with  offensive  weapons.  In  a  show,  given  by 
wise  Julius  Caesar,  320  pairs  of  gladiators  fought; 
Titus,  the  good  and  gracious,  held  a  series  of  shows 
which  extended  over  one  hundred  days;  Trajan,  the 
just,  celebrated  a  triumph  by  an  exhibition  in  which 
5000  contended;  Domitian  excelled  himself  and  dis- 
covered a  new  sensation  by  instituting  a  fight  be- 
tween dwarfs  and  women.  There  was  a  people 
glutted  with  blood,  fed  with  slaughter,  amused  with 
death!  And  it  is  told  that  it  became  a  kind  of 
study  in  certain  cases  to  watch  the  lines  on  the  face 
of  the  dying.     That  was  a  nice  and  refined  sestheti- 


Beligion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries,        198 

cism,  yet  the  most  fit  for  the  spectators  of  the  glad- 
iatorial show. 

Such  was  Rome,  and  Rome  in  the  early  years  of 
our  Christian  era,  Rome  in  its  refinement,  Rome  in 
its  pride,  Rome  in  its  might.  And  if  the  Romans 
were  not  careful  for  toil  and  labor,  or  careful  for 
life,  what  cared  they  for  the  defenceless?  Infants 
are  a  joy  to  man;  childhood  is  sweet  and  beautiful  to 
us;  yet  in  Rome  what  so  common  as  exposure?  what 
so  little  deemed  a  crime?  what  so  little  punished  as 
an  ofience?  Nay,  men  followed  as  a  trade  taking  up 
the  exposed  children  that  they  might  turn  them  to 
the  basest  of  uses,  that  they  might  make  them  live 
the  most  miserable  of  lives.  Do  you  think  the 
ancient  world  happy,  radiant,  because  undarkened 
by  the  shadow  of  the  cross?  You  can  only  so 
think  in  your  ignorance.  Its  good  was  all  for 
the  few,  the  rich  and  the  strong;  but  for  the 
masses,  the  mighty  multitudes  of  the  poor  and 
the  conquered,  the  dependent  and  the  enslaved,  it 
was  a  miserable  world,  and  their  lot  a  lot  of  misery. 
The  very  sense  of  their  rights  was  not  yet  born;  the 
feeling  of  obligation  towards  them  waited  on  the 
footsteps  of  Christ. 


IV. 


Now  into  this  world,  and  face  to  face  with  it, 
Christianity  came;  and  how  did  the  religion  affect 
the  world?  It  is  easy  for  us  to  see  how  truth 
must  act;  truth  needs  to  work  slowly,  with  many  a 
great  and  painful  struo-glc,  into  mind,  and  through 


194  Religion  in  History. 

mind  into  life.  We  think  that  a  man  has  just  to 
believe  in  order  to  be  a  new  man.  But  though 
he  is  a  new  man,  it  is  long  ere  the  new  manhood 
becomes  perfect  in  its  blossom,  longer  still  ere  the 
new  man  makes  a  new  humanity;  and  so  we  must 
watch  the  slow,  yet  sure  and  most  effective  way  in 
which  Christianity,  in  its  grand  ideal  period,  went 
to  work.  Let  me  sketch  in  rapid  outline  one  or  two 
of  the  branches  of  its  action. 

First,  slavery.  It  could  not  and  it  did  not 
abolish  slavery;  yet  it  declared  itself  in  its  ideal 
period  the  foe  of  slavery.  In  Christ  there  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  bond  nor  free.  In  the  church 
there  was  no  slave  and  no  master;  there  all  were 
servants  of  Christ,  and  members  one  of  another. 
Slowly,  as  Christianity  prevailed,  the  idea  of  man's 
equality  entered  into  the  heart  of  society.  When 
you  come  to  Justinian  and  his  laws,  slavery  is  still 
allowed,  but  to  kill  a  slave  is  made  a  crime.  Over 
him  Christian  law  throws  its  shield.  When  you 
come  later  down  still,  the  slave  gains  new  rights. 
He  can  become  a  free  man,  he  can  enter  into  a 
religious  order,  he  can  there  become  the  peer  of  the 
best;  and  in  the  new  states  that  Christianity  formed 
slavery,  in  the  old  sense,  had  no  place.  Nay,  in 
spite  of  its  many  sins  and  imperfections,  look  how 
the  church  welded  in  Spain  Iberian  and  Yisigoth 
together;  how  in  France  it  welded  Kelt  and  Frank; 
how  in  England  it  welded  first  Briton  and  Saxon,  then 
Saxon  and  Norman,  creating  an  entirely  new  ideal, 
the  ideal  of  a  society  without  slaves,  where  manhood 
is  known  and  honoured,  and  has  its  rights  confessed. 


Religion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        195 

Then  secondly,  let  us  see  how  it  affected  the 
feelings  and  spirit  of  humanity.  One  of  the 
earliest  decrees  of  the  Emperor  Constantino  was 
against  the  amphitheatre.  The  people  passionately 
loved  and  still  clung  to  their  brutal  play.  But 
Christian  faith  held  on  against  it,  till  finally,  in  the 
reign  of  Honorius,  when  a  great  victory  was  being 
celebrated,  the  monk  Telemachus  leaped  into  the 
ring,  and  gave  himself  a  prey  to  the  wild  beasts. 
While  many  an  angry  howl  rose  against  the  man 
who  had  spoiled  their  sport,  it  was  found  that  his 
deed  had  given  the  death-blow  to  the  great  evil;  for 
the  consciences  of  men  were  pricked  and  touched  by 
that  act  of  self-sacrifice.  Then  the  great  arena  had 
its  doom,  the  public  conscience  ratified  the  imperial 
decree,  and  the  amphitheatre  ceased. 

Then,  thirdly,  with  the  greater  love  of  freedom 
and  the  softer  social  spirit,  there  came  a  large  belief 
in  the  dignity  of  labour.  Jesus  had  been  a  worker, 
Paul  had  been  a  worker,  John  and  Peter  and  all  the 
apostles  had  been  workers.  They  gave  dignity  to 
toil.  The  Roman  citizen  could  not  soil  his  hands; 
the  Christian  preacher  worked,  toiling  with  his  hands. 
And  so  labour  became  dignified,  was  made  honour- 
able; men  found  that  no  manhood  was  so  base  as 
an  idle  manhood,  manhood  that  loved  to  be  relieved 
from  toil  and  work.  And  now  mark  that  this  went 
on  even  when  you  little  think  it.  The  idle  monks 
are  frequently  blamed;  yet  the  monasteries  used  to 
be  scenes  of  toil.  You  often  go  to  Bolton  or  to 
Fountains,  and  you  say  in  the  wise  manner  of  to-day, 
''Those  old  monks  knew  what  they  were  doing;  they 


196  Religion  in  History. 

placed  their  houses  in  favoured  spots,  thej  chose 
beautiful  situations."  Yet  they  found  them  deserts, 
and  they  made  them  gardens;  they  found  them  moors, 
and  they  planted  them,  and  drained  them,  and  made 
them  fertile  fields.  Our  agriculture,  our  culture,  our 
learning,  owes  more  to  the  monasteries  than  many  a 
modern  man  thinks.  They  made,  or  helped  to  make, 
work  religious.  ' '  Laborare  6st  orare, "  they  said;  to 
work  is  to  worship,  to  toil  is  to  pray. 

Then,  fourthly,  see  how  the  Christian  religion  con- 
secrated the  home.  It  threw  over  the  woman,  it 
threw  over  the  child,  the  halo  of  a  great  love.  The 
child  was  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  He  who  gave 
our  faith  its  being  was  born  of  a  woman,  and  so 
made  woman  sacred.  I  confess  that  there  are  mo- 
ments when,  with  all  my  strong  dislike  to  priest- 
craft, sacerdotalism,  and  the  poor  and  external  form 
of  Christianity  it  implies,  I  can  feel  how  it  taught  us 
reverence  for  woman;  how  its  adoration  of  a  woman 
helped  to  create  the  purer,  the  nobler  ideal  of  the 
home,  the  purer  and  grander  faith  in  maternity. 
The  man  who  is  capable  of  despising  his  mother,  of 
disowning  or  neglecting  a  wife,  or  being  cruel  to  a 
child,  is  no  man,  he  wants  the  soul  of  chivalry.  The 
faith  that  brought  out  that  great  latent  passion  in 
man  for  gentleness  to  woman  and  child,  has  achieved 
a  right  noble  work,  has  done  a  grand  thing. 

But,  fifthly,  besides  the  consecration  of  the  home, 
the  early  church  organized  the  charities,  the  benefi- 
cences of  time.  You  know  not  how  destitute  of  true 
and  generous  action  the  ancient  world  was  I  It  was 
a  new  thing  that  Lucian  laughed  at, — the  sight  of 


Beligion  in  First  Fifteen  Centuries.        19  T 

Christians  visiting  the  prisons  and  ministering  to  the 
captives.  He  thought  them  simpletons,  weak  people 
who  offered  themselves  as  easy  prey  to  the  designing 
and  crafty.  He  did  not  know  that  their  act  expressed 
a  new  passion,  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity,  and  had  in 
it  the  promise  of  redemption  for  the  world.  It  was  a 
new  thing,  despised  of  many  a  man,  to  see  poverty 
relieved,  to  see  disease  nursed,  to  see  pestilence  faced. 
If  time  had  permitted  I  could  have  told  how,  when 
the  barbarian  hordes  swept  over  Italy  or  across 
Africa  or  into  Spain,  rich  Pagans  fled  far  into  their 
retreats,  and  left  pestilence  and  famine  and  death  to 
rage  as  they  listed.  But  brave  men  like  Ambrose 
and  Augustine,  faced  the  desolation  and  death.  The 
matrons  and  the  maids  of  the  new  faith  went  out  to 
nurse  in  hospitals,  in  churches,  by  many  a  bedside, 
creating,  where  only  misery  had  been,  a  sweet  and 
gentle  peace.  The  religion  of  Christ  created  charity; 
at  its  very  birth  it  stood  forth  to  organize  the  benefi- 
cence of  man  into  the  instrument  of  the  providence 
of  God. 

But  above  all,  and  most  of  all,  what  Christianity 
in  these  centuries  did  was  to  substitute  a  new  mental, 
a  new  moral,  a  new  spiritual  basis  for  life.  Life  was 
made  far  sweeter,  far  nobler,  far  diviner  by  having  a 
grander  basis.  No  imperial  decree,  no  fiat  of  state, 
no  word  of  mere  might  constituted  the  organizing 
force  of  society.  Men  believed  in  a  living  God  who 
was  Eternal  Sovereign  and  Father,  in  a  living  Christ 
who  was  an  Eternal  Brother.  Men  believed  that 
man  was  to  man  a  brother  the  world  over.  As 
brothers  they   owed  duties  that  time  could  never 


198  Religion  in  History. 

fulfil,  that  place  could  uever  separate.  The  faith, 
however  imperfect  its  forms,  that  lived  and  worked 
for  these  sublime  and  glorious  ends,  was  a  faith 
that  indeed  came  from  God,  and  made  preparation 
and  provision  for  another  and  better  time  when 
the  large  and  eternal  principles  of  righteousness 
could  be  applied  to  life  and  society. 


LECTURE  y. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION   IN  MODERN  EUROPE. 

The  point  we  have  reached  is  one  of  the  deepest  in- 
terest. It  brings  us  face  to  face  with  questions  that 
relate  to  the  immediate  past,  and  concern  the  living 
present.  Ancient  history  is  the  field  of  the  special 
student.  He  works  in  it,  knows  it,  loves  it,  lives 
in  it,  is  perhaps  more  at  home  with  its  persons, 
principles,  events  than  with  the  men,  the  problems, 
and  the  interests  that  appear  and  wrestle,  that  pre- 
vail and  vanish  on  the  stage  of  the  passing  hour. 
But  modern  Europe  is  our  own  very  world.  We 
belong  to  it,  breathe  its  atmosphere,  live  its  life, 
and  think  its  thoughts,  and  feel  its  electric  currents 
thrill  along  our  nerves.  Its  every  movement  is 
answered  by  the  responsive  pulsations  of  our  hearts. 
Now  this  modern  world  of  ours,  in  which  we  live,  is 
one  full  of  good,  yet  full  also  of  evil;  wealthier  than 
any  past  age,  freer,  better  educated,  more  informed, 
with  vaster  energies  exercised  on  the  field  of  politics, 
commerce,  industry,  science,  literature,  art,  and 
religion.  But  it  is  also  a  world  that  in  the  lucid 
moments  that  come  between  the  periods  of  its  posses- 
sion by  the  pride  of  knowledge,  feels,  as  no  other 


200  Religion  in  History. 

age  ever  felt,  over-burdened  by  a  sense  of  its  poverty, 
misery,  failure,  vice,  and  crime.  There  are  in  our 
world  more  and  mightier  forces  contending  against 
evil,  than  in  any  previous  time.  They  fight  all 
along  the  line  a  victorious  battle.  But  while  so 
fighting,  never  was  age  so  moved  and  so  possessed 
with  the  consciousness  of  evil.  Now  the  sense  of 
suffering  is  one  thing,  the  actual  amount  and  degree 
of  suffering  another,  and  altogether  different.  The 
conditions  of  happiness  are  to-day  more  and  higher 
than  ever  in  the  history  of  the  world  before.  But 
then  the  feeling  of  unhappiness  is  perhaps  deeper, 
the  sense  of  it  keener  and  more  real.  Yet  is  not 
that  an  element  of  the  highest  promise  of  good? 
Evils  that  men  do  not  feel,  they  will  not  remedy; 
evils  that  are  deeply  felt  are  evils  not  to  be  borne : 
and  where  they  are  not  to  be  borne,  they  are  certain 
to  be  abolished.  To  make  an  age  conscious  of  evil 
is  the  first  condition  of  making  it  consciously  happy, 
in  preparing  it  for  larger  happiness.  There  is  at  this 
moment  a  wide  sense  of  suffering  and  of  sin,  but 
then  within  it  there  is  also  a  great  faith,  a  faith  that 
we  can  win,  and  that  we  shall  win,  the  saner,  the 
more  normal  state  of  happy  holy  being.  Modern 
Europe  is  far  more  conscious  of  suffering  than 
ancient  Europe,  but  in  that  consciousness  there 
live  and  work  the  elements  that  have  the  most 
promise  of  deliverance,  those  that  look  toward  the 
great  and  permanent  ameliorative  state  that  is  sure 
to  come. 


Christian  Religion  in  3Iodern  Europe.       201 


1.  Now,  in  attempting  to  discuss  so  large  a  question 
as  Christianity  in  modern  Europe,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  there  is  a  great  variety  of  sides  from  which  it 
can  be  discussed,  while  only  a  few  from  which  it 
is  possible  to  discuss  it  here  and  now.  We  might 
look  at  the  question  as  a  question  of  Churches.  That 
indeed  would  be  a  matter  of  profoundest  interest  and 
instruction.  We  could  compare  the  Greek,  the 
Roman,  the  Reformed,  the  Lutheran,  the  Anglican, 
the  multitudinous  Free  Churches  of  the  modern 
world;  describe  their  respective  characters,  the 
number  of  adherents  they  possess,  the  truths  or 
doctrines  they  hold,  the  constitutions  they  boast,  the 
work  they  have  done  or  tried  to  do,  the  influence 
they  have  exercised  or  still  exercise.  That  were 
indeed  a  noble  as  well  as  an  instructive  work.  The 
churches  represent  perhaps  the  mightiest  mass  of 
devoted  labour,  of  noble  living,  of  ungrudging  service 
of  our  kind,  ever  at  any  moment  seen  in  the  history 
of  man.  I  put  it  to  every  fair-minded  person  as  a 
simple  problem:  imagine  all  the  Churches  with  their 
agencies  and  institutions  suddenly  destroyed,  can 
you  conceive  the  result  for  our  order,  for  our  society 
and  age?  Think — would  not  the  myriad -branched 
stream  of  charity  be  almost  completely  dried  up  at 
its  source?  Would  not  the  ministries  of  mercy,  of 
healing,  of  gentleness,  of  readiness  to  rescue  the 
fallen,  and  cure  the  diseased,  be  suddenly  brought 
to  an  end?  Would  not  the  inspiration  that  lifts 
many  a  life  out  of  the   dust  be   extinguished,  and 


202  Religion  in  History. 

some  of  the  fairest  and  most  beautiful  phases  of 
human  character  be  utterly  blighted  and  blurred? 
I  know  that  in  certain  places  what  professes  to  be 
satire,  but  is  only  brutal  coarseness,  delights  to 
magnify  the  individual  error,  crime,  or  sin  of  men 
who  are  held  to  represent  Christian  Churches  and 
the  Christian  religion.  That  shallow  system  which 
does  not  or  will  not  see  the  nobility,  the  magnanimity, 
the  heroism  that  in  many  a  life  serves  its  kiud  with- 
out money  and  without  price,  is  no  system  conscious 
of  its  own  truth,  fighting  a  noble  battle  with  noble 
weapons.  Men  and  women!  a  cause  that  needs  an 
ignoble  instrument  is  an  ignoble  cause.  Fear  not 
to  say,  the  cause  that  can  see  nothing  to  honour  in 
religion,  when  it  has  created  and  is  creating  millions 
of  honourable  lives,  is  no  cause  that  believes  in  its 
own  truth,  or  can  wield  a  power  for  righteousness. 
It  would  be  easy,  too,  by  comparing  the  churches 
of  to-day  with  the  mediaeval  churches  to  show  how 
much  mightier  the  former  are.  The  ages  of  faith 
are  now,  not  once  were.  The  age  of  ignorance  and 
superstition,  or  ceremony,  lies  behind,  in  mediaeval 
bygone  Christianity.  The  age  of  faith  is  in  our 
midst.  True,  you  may  think  of  a  time  when  all  over 
Europe  one  church  reigned,  when  the  monastery  was 
as  many  acred — acred  up  to  the  lip,  consolled  up  to 
the  chin — as  the  modern  peer.  You  may  think  of  the 
time  when  out  of  their  vast  wealth  the  monks  built 
their  stately  buildings,  or  the  church  reared  its 
grand  cathedral,  as  a  time  of  faith.  I  think  other- 
wise, and  turn  from  then  to  now.  I  think  of  a  land 
like  England,  where  men  often  out  of  their  poverty 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       203 

maintain  and  propagate  their  faith.  I  have  known 
many  a  one  who  has  given  up  large  prospects  of 
commercial  wealth,  large  prospects  of  professional 
success,  and  lived  a  life  of  purest  poverty  that  he 
might  live  a  life  altogether  unto  Christ.  Or  I  think 
of  lands  like  that  lying  beyond  the  Atlantic,  where 
all  churches  are  free,  and  a  living  people  make  the 
living  church.  And  I  say,  look  how  the  fact  stands: 
The  man  in  the  market,  on  the  exchange,  in  the 
factory,  in  the  infirmary,  by  the  sick  bed,  anywhere, 
everywhere,  whose  life  is  possessed  and  ruled  and 
inspired  by  the  great  truths  of  religion,  is  the  true 
measure  of  its  power.  And  never  at  any  moment 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  Christian  faith  were  there 
so  many  men  filled,  commanded,  guided  by  the  holier 
and  simpler  truths  of  our  faith. 

2.  Yet  we  must  look  at  the  matter  not  simply  as 
a  question  of  Churches  or  Christian  living,  but  also 
as  a  matter  of  belief.  Here  I  will  say,  never  was  age 
more  marked  by  its  strong  and  victorious  belief  than 
ours.  I  know  what  I  say.  The  truth  of  Christ  is 
slowly  subduing  the  mind  of  man  into  itself.  Never 
was  His  authority  so  great  as  it  is  now.  It  is  greater 
now  than  in  that  mediaeval  time,  when  religion  was 
the  great  concern  of  the  few,  the  mere  pastime  of 
the  many.  Then  indeed  the  penances,  the  absolu- 
tions, the  festivals,  the  fasts,  the  indulgences  granted 
by  a  mighty  priesthood  helped  the  Church  often  only 
to  gain  influence  over  men  by  making  a  league  with 
sin.  It  is  now  mightier  than  in  the  Reformation 
time,  when  princes  and  statesmen,  ecclesiastics  and 
divines  made  it  their  exclusive  business,  and  armies 


204  Religion  in  History. 

fought  to  determine  to  what  Church  or  to  what  creed 
the  whole  country  or  the  whole  people  should  belong. 
It  is  mightier,  too,  than  in  an  age  like  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  pre-eminent  age  of  apologetics.  Then 
it  was  that  on  the  one  side  there  stood  men  like 
Toland,  Collins,  and  Tindal,  Bolingbroke  and  Chubb 
and  Hume:  and  on  the  other  men  like  Butler,  and 
Berkeley,  and  Paley.  Yet  great  as  were  the  apolo- 
gies of  that  time,  the  greatest  apologist  of  them  all 
had  to  confess,  ^^  I  know  not  how  it  has  happened, 
but  so  it  is,  that  many  take  for  granted  that  the 
Christian  religion  is  not  so  much  as  a  subject  of 
inquiry,  but  is  at  length  discovered  to  be  ficti- 
tious." That  may  not  now  be  said.  This  century 
has  given  to  faith  its  brightest  sons.  The  men  who 
when  it  is  past  will  stand  up  as  the  great  time-marks 
of  the  period,  are  men  who  boast  of  strong  and 
noble  faith.  The  thinkers  that  have  had  the  might- 
iest influence  are  Christian  thinkers.  It  may  be  that 
we  have  phases  and  forms  of  loud-speaking  infidelity. 
It  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  we  have  a  great  deep 
strong  '^sea  of  faith,"  a  sea  of  faith  that  never  was  so 
near  its  full.  And  still  it  will  continue  to  rise.  As 
man's  knowledge  extends,  so  will  it  enlarge.  It  is 
not  knowledge  that  religion  has  to  fear,  it  is  ig- 
norance: it  is  the  absence  of  science  applied  to  re- 
ligion. Give  us  more  scientific  spirit,  give  us 
wider  knowledge,  give  us  calm  impartial  study  of 
man  and  man's  past  and  man's  spirit:  and  religion 
will  reign,  its  power  will  grow,  its  might  increase. 
Now  these  are  phases  of  our  question  and  subject 
that  might  fitly  enough  be  here  and  now  discussed. 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       205 

But  they  are  not  the  peculiar  phases  that  I  wish  to 
present  to  you.     I  have  invited  working  men:  to 
working  men  as  workers  I  wish  to  speak.     I  have 
tried  to  exhibit  religion    in  relation  to  history,  to 
society,  to  the  great  practical  problems  that  emerge 
in  connexion  with  man  in  his  social  and  collective 
life;  and  to  that  phase  I  am  pre-eminently  wishful  to 
adhere.     I  want  to  look  at  Christianity — the  Chris- 
tian religion  in  modern  Europe — as  it  has  affected 
the  political,  the  social,  the  economical  questions; 
or  rather  the  great  principles  that  lie  as  the  com- 
mon basis  underneath  them  all.     And  we  look  at 
these  aspects  and  phases  only  in  order  that  we  may 
discover   what  religion   is,  and  that  we   may   say 
what  it  is   to   men  who  are  workers   and  toilers, 
anxious  to  find  freedom  in  the  world,  anxious  to  find 
wealth,  character,  happiness,  and  to  know  that  to 
him  that  worketh  there  are  proper  wages  and  sure 
reward. 

II. 

1.  Such,  then,  being  our  peculiar  problem,  I 
would  say,  at  the  outset,  that  modern  Europe,  as 
distinguished  from  ancient  Europe,  may  be  traced 
back  into  two  great  movements;  a  movement  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  and  a  movement  of  the  sixteenth; 
one  the  Renaissance,  the  other  the  Reformation. 
The  Renaissance  afteeted  and  aflects  art  and  letters. 
The  Reformation  affected  and  atfects  religion.  The 
Renaissance  was  the  revival  of  letters,  touched  all 
questions  that  related  to  man  as  a  thinking,  perceiv- 
ing, living  being,  who  needs  to  be  educated.     The 


206  Religion  in  History, 

particular  form  that  it  took  was  in  great  part  due 
to  the  rise  of  the  Turkish  power  in  the  East,  and 
the  consequent  extinction  of  the  Greek  Empire. 
At  its  fall  many  Greeks  travelled  westward  bring- 
ing their  language,  their  ancient  literature,  the 
laws,  the  practically  lost  knowledge  of  Greece  and 
Rome.  Their  main  home  and  centre  of  work 
was  Italy.  There  they  taught  many  a  joyous 
and  earnest  spirit  to  read  Plato,  to  know  Aristotle, 
to  discourse  with  the  ancient  orators  and  feel  the 
exaltation  and  inspiration  of  the  great  poets. 
There  men  who  had  been  accustomed  to  a  medi- 
aeval and  often  heathenish  Christianity,  suddenly 
found  themselves  face  to  face  with  the  old  pagan- 
ism, pure  and  simple.  And  it  became  as  it  were 
the  basis  of  their  lives.  They  went  back  to  the 
old  naturalism,  the  love  of  flesh  and  of  nature  that 
had  so  marked,  especially  in  its  decadence,  the 
ancient  world. 

Now  how  did  this  pagan  revival,  which  replaced 
in  great  part  mediaeval  Christianity,  aflect  these  cities 
of  Italy?  It  found  them  free:  Florence  rich,  artistic, 
strong,  rejoicing  in  its  political  freedom  and  republi- 
can institutions:  Pisa  enterprising,  its  rival,  almost 
its  equal:  Bologna,  Padua,  full  of  life,  the  one 
studying  law,  the  other  studying  medicine,  both 
great  in  their  universities  :  Genoa,  Venice,  both 
queens  of  the  sea,  sending  their  fleets  afar,  bringing 
in  the  riches  of  distant  Asia,  making  their  merchant 
princes  prouder  than  any  royal  blood  in  Europe:  all 
free,  all  energetic,  as  it  were  in  the  flood  tide  of  vic- 
torious life.     But  in  the  presence  of  that  revived 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe,       20*7 

paganism,  enervating  public  life  at  its  source,  what 
happened?  The  rise  of  the  Medici  at  Florence,  the 
usurpations  of  tyranny  and  the  growth  of  a  perni- 
cious luxury  in  them  all,  made  these  Italian  cities — 
once  the  freest,  the  wealthiest,  and  most  enterprising 
of  Europe — the  poorest  and  most  reactionary. 
There  Italy  remains,  the  victim  of  two  great  forces, 
the  Renaissance  in  its  classic  naturalism  and  the 
Church  it  tried  to  supersede.  Most  beautiful,  most 
historic  of  European  countries,  she  lives  at  this  day 
only  in  the  first  energies  of  a  new  attempt  at  life, 
seeking  to  catch  up  the  other  and  more  northern  na- 
tions which  have  sped  far  forward  in  the  great  path 
of  progress  opened  by  freedom. 

2.  The  Renaissance  as  it  passed  into  the  Reforma- 
tion was  by  it  incorporated  and  made  a  servant,  true 
and  good,  of  religion,  helping  the  discovery  and  the 
knowledge  of  the  old  religious  books.  But  taking 
the  Reformation  simply  by  itself,  we  find  it  was 
an  attempt  to  recover  the  lost  or  forgotten  ideal  of 
the  Christian  religion,  an  attempt  to  return  to  the 
real  and  genuine  religion  of  Christ.  As  indicated  in 
the  previous  lecture,  two  great  heathen  influences 
had  entered  the  Church.  The  first  was  sacerdotal, 
the  second  political.  The  sacerdotal  brought  into  a 
religion  which  knew  no  priest,  no  temple,  no  sacrifice 
save  what  was  spiritual,  an  immense  hierarchy,  a 
disciplined  and  organized  priesthood,  that  by  com- 
mand of  the  access  to  God  and  the  rewards  and 
penalties  of  the  life  to  come,  had  become  an  organ- 
ized tyranny,  which  tyrannized  not  through  what  it 
got  from  Christ,  but  only  through  what  it  acquired 


208  Religion  in  History. 

from  Judaized  heathenism.  The  sacerdotal  mind 
and  practice  is  invariably  disastrous  to  spiritual  re- 
ligion. The  man  who  stands  where  only  Christ 
should  stand,  between  man  and  God,  obscures  faith, 
hides  God  behind  his  office  and  his  rites.  Where 
God  cannot  be  seen  for  a  man,  the  man  conceals  God, 
and  in  so  doing  is  the  great  enemy  of  man.  But 
while  the  sacerdotal  was  mischievous  on  the  one 
side,  the  political  was  mischievous  on  the  other.  It 
made  the  Church  aim  at  a  supremacy  over  the 
State,  which  was  not  spiritual  and  moral,  but  politi- 
cal and  secular;  a  supremacy  which  consisted,  not  in 
the  reign  of  beliefs  and  ideals  through  the  reason 
over  the  conscience,  but  in  one  organized  polity 
commanding  all  the  rest.  The  distinctive  element 
of  the  Christian  religion  had  been  the  reign  of  God 
in  the  human  soul,  commanding  the  man  by  com- 
manding the  man's  spirit  and  conscience.  When 
the  Church  was  taken  and  organized  into  the  great 
civitas,  or  State,  or  polity  which  sought  to  win,  by  its 
command  over  the  future,  authority  in  the  present, 
in  all  that  pertained  to  civil  as  well  as  religious  life 
— it  perverted  Christianity  and  turned  it  back  into 
the  older  heathenism.  Now  the  Reformation  was  a 
great  attempt  to  escape  from  these  two  Pagan  ele- 
ments, to  get  back  into  a  purer  and  nobler,  because 
a  more  primitive  religion.  It  meant  to  say,  not  the 
religion  of  the  Church  but  the  religion  of  Christ  is 
what  man  needs. 

So  Luther  said,  '  ^  Get  quit  of  the  Pope,  get  rid  of 
the  priests,  rid  of  all  that  stands  between  the 
individual  soul  and  God.      Let  God  and  the  soul 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe,       209 

stand  face  to  face.  Let  God  and  the  soul  know  and 
be  known  to  each  other.  Here,  in  this  immediate 
knowledge  of  God  given  by  God,  I  stand;  I  can  do 
no  other.  God  help  me,  for  God  commands  me." 
His  watchword,  which  summed  up  this  belief,  was 
'^  Justification  by  faith," — faith,  face  to  face  know- 
ledge of  God,  and  justification,  peace  in  the  con- 
science where  God  lived,  where  God's  voice  was 
heard,  believed,  obeyed.  That  cry  wakened  Germany. 
They  say,  Luther  made  the  literature  of  Germany. 
Do  you  know  what  that  means  ?  To  make  a  litera- 
ture means  to  make  the  mind  of  the  people.  To 
create  the  literature  of  a  people  is  to  create  a  people's 
spirit,  its  thought,  its  science,  its  whole  inmost  life; 
and,  his  enemies  being  witness,  Luther  did  that;  he 
created  the  literature  of  Germany  by  that  word  of 
his,  by  his  revival  of  the  old  faith.  It  entered  into 
the  spirit  of  Teutonic  man  and  made  his  thought 
anew. 

III. 

That  was  only  one  section  of  the  Reformation; 
there  was  another.  Calvin  went  further  than  Luther. 
He  not  only  insisted  on  God  and  man  standing  face 
to  face,  but  he  insisted  on  applying  his  notion  of 
religion  by  building  it  into  a  state.  Now  I  do  not 
mean  either  to  defend  or  expound  Calvin's  notion  of 
God,  any  more  than  I  intend  to  defend  and  expound 
his  attempted  realization  of  a  State.  I  think  both 
had  august  and  noble  elements.  I  think  both  had 
very  terrible,  very  stern,  very  awful  elements  indeed. 
One  thing  I  mean  you  to  see  and  so  must  empMsize 


210  Religion  in  History. 

in  your  hearing:  wherein  he  found  faith  he  found  life, 
he  made  belief  into  a  law  for  living:  he  made  the  duty 
of  the  conscience  to  God  the  foremost  duty  of  man. 
This  conception  of  human  duty  he  so  bound  up 
with  his  notion  of  God,  his  idea  of  religion,  as  to 
compel  unity  to  enter  into  the  life  of  the  real  believer. 
So  doing,  Calvin  powerfully  affected  five  countries — 
Switzerland,  France,  Holland,  England,  Scotland. 

1.  Switzerland  we  may  leave  aside.  But  look  at 
France.  There  came  to  her  reformed  people  the 
hardest  problem  that  could  be  set  to  any  one.  The 
faith  they  held,  their  king  would  not  allow.  The 
duty  their  conscience  demanded,  the  State  declared 
a  duty  not  to  be  permitted.  It  is  hard  to  be 
obedient  citizens  when  the  first  law  of  the  State 
contradicts  the  first  necessity  of  conscience.  Yet 
this  people,  though  they  stood  for  God  against  their 
king,  became,  whenever  opportunity  allowed,  indus- 
trious, peaceable  citizens,  making  their  cities  beauti- 
ful, their  districts  wealthy.  When  inspired  by  influ- 
ences born  not  of  religion  simply,  but  of  other  and 
baser  motives  as  well,  Louis  XIV.  revoked  the  edict 
that  allowed  them  to  live  in  peace,  they  bade,  in 
great  numbers,  farewell  to  their  Fatherland,  that 
they  might  go  elsewhere  and  serve  their  God.  And 
so  there  came  this  principle  through  them:  Religion 
is  so  supreme  a  matter  of  conscience,  that  the  State 
which  means  to  remain  one,  united,  compact,  har- 
monious, must  grant  freedom  in  religion.  Martyrs 
to  the  doctrine  they  were;  but  in  the  State  as  in 
the  Church,  the  blood  of  the  martyr  is  the  seed  of 
freedom,  power,  and  success. 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe,       211 

2.  Note,  next,  the  influence  in  Holland.  Holland 
fou  know  has  a  noble  history.  The  king  it  had 
for  ruler,  Philip  of  Spain, — forsooth  no  good  man 
in  the  moral  sense,  though  most  pious  in  the 
ecclesiastical, — held  that  his  subjects  must  be  of  his 
faith.  But  these  Dutchmen  said,  ' '  This  light  of  the 
reformed  religion  has  come  to  us  from  God.  We 
believe  it  to  be  His  truth,  and  we  shall  obey  God, 
rather  than  King  Philip."  Patient  they  had  been, 
calm,  industrious,  fighting  that  great  fight  of  theirs 
against  the  tides  of  old  Ocean  in  the  swamps  by  the 
sea.  They  had  built  out  the  waves;  beneath  their 
level  they  had  cultivated  their  fields.  A  peaceful  but 
most  enduring  people  they  were,  to  whom  religion,  as 
now  understood,  came,  a  very  revelation  of  the  pres- 
ence and  power  of  God.  They  mustered  in  their 
cities  and  mustered  in  their  fields;  and  against  them 
came  the  great  legions  of  Spain,  led  by  Parma,  led 
by  Alva,  led  by  Don  John  of  Austria,  led  by  the  most 
famous  captains  of  the  age.  But  these  men  of 
Holland  stood  by  their  cities  and  fought  in  their 
swamps  like  heroes.  They  let  the  sea  sweep  over 
their  fields  and  waste  their  cities,  rather  than  yield 
the  freedom  that  came  to  them  from  God.  And 
when  they  had  beaten  back  the  mighty  power  of 
Spain,  and  gained  their  freedom,  they  nobly  showed 
how  a  people  that  had  fought  to  the  death  for  their 
own  freedom  could  help  to  make  other  peoples  free. 
Their  land  became  the  very  home  and  house  of  refuge 
for  the  oppressed  of  all  lands.  There  freedom  of 
thought  and  speech  did  reign,  and  reign  in  peace. 

3.  Next  in  England.       The  Anglican  Church  is 


212  Religion  in  History. 

very  proud  of  not  being  a  Puritan  Church,  reformed 
by  means  of  Puritan  theology.  Yet  the  great 
English  people  lie  under  immensest  obligations  to 
Calvin,  to  Geneva,  to  the  Reformed  men  and  doctrine. 
The  men  Calvin  influenced  were  called  Puritan,  which 
meant — they  thought  religious  men  were  men  who 
ought  to  be  pure,  holy,  of  good  report.  These  Puritan 
men  became  lovers  of  freedom,  and  they  won  freedom 
for  you.  When  men  said  of  a  man  weak,  self-willed, 
proud,  very  much  in  want  of  all  that  makes  manhood 
true  and  generous,  '  ^  He  is  king  by  Divine  right,  sits 
enthroned  to  be  obeyed  as  the  very  vicar  and  repre- 
sentative of  God,"  these  Puritans  stood  forward  and 
answered,  '■  '■  Nay,  this  people  of  England  is  a  free 
people.  We  stand  under  obligation  to  God  first.  We 
are  bound  to  obey  Him.  Being  bound  to  obey  Him, 
when  the  king  commands  what  conflicts  with  the 
command  of  God,  we  must  obey  God  rather  than  the 
king."  Believing  that,  they  fought  their  fight,  and 
they  won  it,  even  though  it  seemed  in  defeat. 
Charles  I.,  when  he  lost  his  head,  made  this  great 
principle  manifest  and  intelligible  to  all  kings,  that 
they  are  for  peoples,  and  not  peoples  for  them.  That 
is  the  political  principle  England  owed  to  her  Puri- 
tans, and  to  the  fundamental  article  of  their  faith; 
the  article  that,  religion  being  of  God,  the  religious 
man  can  be  responsible  for  his  faith,  and  for  the 
conduct  his  faith  demands,  to  God  alone. 

Nor  was  their  contribution  to  freedom  limited  to 
England.  The  revolution  they  accomplished  not 
without  blood,  made  the  bloodless  revolution  of  a 
later  generation  possible;  and  supplied  at  once  prin- 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       213 

ciples  and  inspirations  that  were  in  the  succeeding 
centuries  to  help  oppressed  and  impoverished  peoples 
to  cast  off  the  regal  and  sacerdotal  tyrannies  under 
which  they  groaned.  And  they  did  more  than  teach; 
they  sent  out  a  branch  that  was  destined  to  bear  the 
noblest  fruits  of  freedom.  Of  these  Puritans  many 
finding  it  hopeless  to  expect  to  be  allowed  to  live  at 
home  and  serve  God  in  their  own  way,  crossed  the 
ocean  and  made  another  English  nation  beyond  the 
sea.  And  they  took  with  them  the  principles  that 
lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  great  American  Republic, 
principles  which  have  secured  absolute  freedom  of 
religious  thought,  and  made  our  kin  beyond  ^^the  sea 
the  freest  of  all  the  peoples  earth  has  known. 

4.  Lastly,  in  Scotland.  What  did  the  reformed 
faith  find  there,  and  what  did  it  accomplish?  It 
found  a  people  barbarous,  downtrodden,  enslaved, 
made  coarse  and  brutal  by  a  long  war  of  independ- 
ence against  their  mighty  neighbour;  and  as  it  were 
by  the  breath  of  a^creative  word,  it  made  that  people 
stand  up  happy,  free,  educated,  strong.  Whatever 
success  the  sons  of  that  land  have  achieved,  they 
have  achieved  by  the  faith,  and  the  political  energy 
created  of  the  faith,  they  received  from  the  reformed 
religion. 

IV. 

IN'ow  this  rapid  historical  sketch  has  showed  us 
that  the  Reformation,  by  virtue  of  its  being  a  return, 
or  an  attempted  return,  to  the  religion  of  Christ,  the 
purer  and  more  genuine  Christian  religion,  accom- 
plished far  more  than  it  attempted.      It  revealed 


214"  Religion  in  History. 

ideas,  energies,  elements  in  religion  that  worked 
powerfully  for  human  freedom,  that  created  in  the 
State  a  freer  and  a  higher  life,  and  created  in  man 
and  in  society  nobler  purpose,  greater  independence, 
that  love  of  equal  freedom  and  equal  justice  which 
but  expresses  the  love  of  man.  The  principles  that 
thence  emerge  may  be  illustrated  on  one  or  two 
points  of  detail.  That  their  action  may  be  appre- 
hended, we  must  come  down  to  matters  of  living 
interest,  matters  of  clear  historical  certainty  that 
ought  to  be  familiar  to  you. 

1.  Now,  let  me  ask  you  as  men  who  work,  what 
are  the  three  great  terms  that  you  think,  as  it  were, 
the  true  Palladia  of  the  order  most  to  be  desired? 
They  are  the  terms  which  were  the  watchwords  of 
the  French  Revolution — Liberty,  Equality,  Frater- 
nity. I  cannot  enter  into  a  discussion  as  to  the 
French  Revolution.  It  has  two  phases,  and  can  only 
be  understood  when  both  these  are  regarded.  One 
phase  is  its  negative,  the  other  its  positive  side.  Its 
negative  phase  it  owes  to  Yoltaire,  to  Rousseau,  to 
the  Encyclopaedists,  and  owes  it  to  them  mainly  be- 
cause of  the  great  abuses  against  which  they  had  to 
contend.  The  French  Revolution  was  a  supreme 
act  of  retribution,  the  supreme  act  of  national 
retribution  on  the  stage  of  modern  history.  Under 
and  after  Louis  XI Y. ,  the  king  and  the  Church  had 
bound  themselves  in  an  unholy  alliance.  That  alli- 
ance meant  bondage  to  man,  meant  poverty  to  the 
multitude,  meant  abdication  of  the  highest  political 
and  social  duties  both  of  king  and  Church.  The 
revolution,  in  its  negative  phase,  hastened,  though 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       216 

not  caused,  by  the  literature  which  exposed  the  un- 
holy alliance,  was  an  act  of  retribution  and  retribution 
was  never  more  deserved  and  never  more  inevitable. 
On  the  positive  side  it  was  an  affirmation  of  principles 
which  did  not  come  from  these  negative  quarters.  It 
was  the  affirmation  of  the  principles  of  Liberty,  Equal- 
ity, and  Fraternity;  although  in  its  practical  working- 
out  it  was  the  greatest  affront  to  these  principles,  and 
repudiation  of  them  which  modern  times  have  known. 
I  am  concerned  purely  with  the  great  positive  prin- 
ciples, not  with  the  event,  not  with  the  method  in 
which  it  was  conducted,  not  with  its  retributive 
relation  to  the  past,  but  only  with  its  relation  to 
these  three  great  ideas  of  Liberty,  Equality,  Fra- 
ternity— whence  came  they? 

i.  Liberty.  Liberty  is  of  two  kinds,  political  and 
religious.  Political  liberty  is  revealed  in  the  highest 
and  most  perfect  degree  where  the  people  have  the 
right  absolute  to  make  and  to  amend  their  own  laws. 
Religious  liberty  is  realized  where  every  citizen 
possesses  the  right  to  judge  in  religious  matters, 
and  to  determine  the  faith  or  the  religion  by  or 
after  which  he  shall  order  his  life.  Whence  came 
the  two  great  ideas  as  now  understood,  liberty, 
political  and  religious? 

(a)  Political.  It  did  not  come  from  antiquity. 
No  Oriental  monarchy  possessed  or  possesses  it. 
They,  every  one,  were  or  are  despotic.  It  did  not 
come  from  any  ancient  European  state.  You  had 
a  slight  glimpse  of  what  Rome  was;  there  three- 
fifths  of  the  population  were  slaves,  and  only  two- 
fifths  free.     But  there  is  Greece,  and  you  will  say, 


216  Religion  in  History. 

^' Think  of  those  great  republics  of  Greece;  at 
Athens,  where  Plato  lived,  and  Aeschulos  sang;  at 
Lacedaemon,  where  dwelt  the  great  heroes  of  Grecian 
story?  Think  of  those  happy  times  before  the 
Peloponnesian  war— ^he  days  of  the  heroes  of  Mar- 
athon and  Thermopylae,  when  Attica  and  Sparta 
were  freel  "  But  what  do  you  mean  by  free?  How 
many  made  the  State?  Hear  this:  There  were  for 
every  twenty-seven  freemen  in  Attica  a  hundred 
slaves,  almost  four  slaves  to  one  free  man:  that  was 
the  ancient  ideal  of  liberty! 

When  you  come  to  modern  times  and  ask, 
'^  Whence  came  our  liberty?  Has  it  come  from  free 
thought?"  Let  us  appeal  to  history;  its  testimony 
no  man  can  gainsay.  Who  is  the  father  of  modern 
materialism?  Thomas  Hobbes.  And  wiiat  says  he? 
The  primitive  state  was  a  state  of  war,  the  strong- 
est man — and  this  is  modern  Evolution — prevailed, 
and  so  became  king:  might  is  right;  and  the 
king,  being  king  by  divine  might,  he  alone  is  the 
free  man,  other  men  are  bound  to  be  his  servants 
and  do  his  will.  But,  you  say,  remember  the  later 
freethinkers!  Well,  try  Bolingbroke;  he  believes  in 
a  patriot  king,  and  sketched  the  ideal  of  one.  And 
what  sort  of  king  was  he?  One  who  by  skilful 
manipulation  of  the  people  was  able  to  win,  retain, 
and  exercise  absolute  power,  using  all  their  political 
institutions  as  instruments  of  his  will,  deluding 
them  by  a  representation  that  was  only  a  means  to 
his  own  ends.  But  a  still  more  typical  man  is 
David  Hume,  the  choicest  sceptic  Europe  has  ever 
known.    Hume  had  two  great  enemies,  and  he  loved 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       217 

nothing  better  than  to  swoop  down  first  on  one  and 
then  on  the  other.  And  these  two  great  enemies  of 
his  were  religion  and  liberty.  Try  Edward  Gibbon. 
No  man  ever  clothed  a  sneer  in  language  so  stately, 
or  mocked  in  periods  so  majestic.  Well,  then,  in  the 
correspondence  that  unbosoms  his  inmost  convictions, 
he  warns  his  friend  against  the  Anti-Slavery  Agita- 
tion, for  wild  ideas  of  the  rights  and  natural  equality 
of  men  lurk  in  it.  Democracy  he  hates;  to  him  it  is 
the  last  apostasy.  He  has  only  scorn  for  it:  and 
he  speaks  of  the  French  Revolution  as  an  accursed 
thing.  But  these,  you  will  say,  are  old,  even  anti- 
quated men;  try,  then,  so  late  an  exponent  of  free- 
thought  as  Comte.  Where  does  he  find  his  ideal  king? 
Not  in  the  sovereign  of  England;  not  in  the  monarch 
of  any  Constitutional  State;  but  in  the  Czar,  the 
Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  the  greatest  of  the  auto- 
crats, Nicholas.  No,  if  you  want  political  freedom, 
it  is  to  States  that  have  known  what  it  was  to  believe 
in  the  Christian  religion  that  you  must  go.  You  must 
go  to  Holland,  as  she  issues  purified  from  her  baptism 
of  blood,  strengthened  in  her  faith,  and  ennobled  in 
her  spirit  by  the  unequal,  yet  victorious  struggle 
against  Spain.  You  must  go  to  England  as  the 
Puritans  made  her.  You  must  go  to  Scotland  as 
she  was  made  by  Knox.  You  must  go  to  America, 
so  largely  formed,  organized,  and  governed  by  the 
sturdy  Puritan  men  of  New  England  and  the  mild 
inflexible  Friends  and  stalwart  Presbyterians  of 
Pennsylvania.  And  underneath  all  you  find  that 
the  grand  dominant  factors  are  the  religious  ideas, 
the  faith  that  came  through  Jesus  Christ. 


218  Religion  in  History. 

(/3)  But,  perhaps,  some  of  you  will  tell  me  that 
with  religious  liberty  it  is  different.  On  the  contrary, 
I  tell  you  that  with  religious  liberty  the  same  truth 
holds  in  a  still  more  eminent  degree.  Gibbon,  in 
many  a  memorable  phrase,  stated  his  faith  that  the 
Old  World  was  tolerant.  Yes,  it  was  tolerant — to 
gentlemen  of  culture,  to  persons  of  refined  taste,  who 
could,  while  taking  part  in  religious  services,  despise 
religion  ,•  but  never  tolerant  to  an  earnest  man, 
who  dared  openly  to  differ  from  the  religion  of  the 
State.  I  love  Plato;  I  look  upon  his  books  every 
day,  and  I  never  look  upon  them  but  with  love.  The 
thoughts  that  lived  in  him  are  living  thoughts  in 
many  a  mind  still.  But  now  look  at  his  idea  of 
religious  freedom.  Hypocrisy  he  would  punish  as  a 
crime.  Disloyalty  to  the  gods  accepted  by  the  State, 
he  would  visit  with  imprisonment,  solitary  and  stern, 
for  five  years,  and  if  the  man  at  the  end  still  rebelled, 
he  would  have  given  him  over  to  death.  That  was 
the  idea  of  perhaps  the  most  enlightened  man  in  all 
antiquity.  And,  as  we  have  already  seen,  it  was  the 
same  in  Rome.  There  the  laws  of  the  State  and 
public  opinion  were  just  as  severe  in  dealing  with 
men  who  had  broken  with  the  ancient  faith,  or  had 
dared  to  accept  a  new  one.  To  this  the  early 
Christian  persecutions  alone  were  a  suflicient  witness. 
Where,  then,  do  you  find  the  first  assertion  of  religi- 
ous liberty?  In  the  fathers  of  the  Christian  Church. 
TertuUian,  for  example,  says,  ^^It  is  ill  homage  to 
God  to  compel  a  man  to  serve  him,  as  if  He  could 
be  pleased  with  the  service  of  hypocrisy."  Athan- 
asius   says,    '  ^  No  forced    obedience  pleases   God  : 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       219 

He  dislikes  that  men  should  be  made  religious  by 
hatchet  and  by  sword."  Hilary  of  Poitiers  told  an 
Emperor,  '^You  govern  that  all  may  enjoy  sweet 
liberty;  and  peace  can  be  established  only  by  allow- 
ing each  to  live  wholly  according  to  his  own  convic- 
tions." '^God  is  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  and 
requires  not  an  obedience  that  is  forced."  And 
Lactantius,  one  of  the  most  eloquent  of  the  Fathers, 
argued  that  only  reason,  never  compulsion,  availed 
in  religion,  which  could  be  defended  not  by  slaying, 
but  by  dying;  not  by  wasting,  but  by  suffering;  not 
by  injustice,  but  by  fidelity. 

When  we  come  to  modern  times,  what  do  we 
find?  Now  that  the  principle  is  gained,  you  get  many 
a  man  who  has  denied  religion  crying,  give  us  freedom 
of  thought.  But  look  at  the  men  who  have  made 
the  modern  belief  in  liberty  of  mind,  and  do  you 
find  that  they  were  anti-religious,  atheistic,  infidel? 
Here  is  Hobbes's  principle:  ^^  The  prince  has  a  right 
to  say  what  his  subjects  are  to  believe."  So  great 
is  that  right  that  if  any  subject  dares  to  deny  what 
the  king  enjoins,  he  commits  a  crime  against  the 
law  of  the  State.  If  a  man  were  to  come  from 
the  Indies  and  teach  his  religion  where  another  has 
been  established,  he  ought  to  be  prosecuted  for 
crime.  Nay,  if  the  king  be  infidel,  yet  the  people 
are  to  believe  after  his  manner,  for  he  was  appointed 
to  his  office  of  God !  Where  God  has  appointed, 
men  are  bound  to  obey.  So  held  and  so  reasoned 
the  man  who  may  be  most  justly  termed  the  father 
and  founder  of  modern  Materialism. 

Again,   no   man   did   more   to  bring   round  the 


220  Religion  in  History. 

French  Revolution  on  the  negative  side  than 
Kousseau.  And  what  did  he  teach  in  his  "Social 
Contract"?  He  lays  down  the  natural  articles  of 
belief,  and  they  are  to  be  articles  of  citizenship. 
If  a  man  denies  them,  he  is  to  be  exiled,  exiled 
not  as  denying  religious  dogma,  but  because  he  is 
"unsocial,"  violates,  as  it  were,  one  of  the  primary 
articles  of  association.  If  a  man,  who  has  con- 
fessed himself  as  "social,"  and  thus  expressed  his 
"sociability,"  is  unfaithful  to  the  profession  of  belief 
that  admitted  to  society,  then  he  ought  to  die  as 
guilty  of  crime  against  the  law,  the  social  law  on 
which  the  society  or  state  was  based,  and  which  he 
had  accepted  and  received.  In  the  '  ^  Spirit  of  Laws, " 
Montesquieu,  another  precursor  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, teaches,  that  where  an  established  religion  is, 
there  no  new  religion  ought  to  be  allowed  to  be. 
An  established  religion  is  the  law  of  the  land,  and  no 
land,  he  argued,  with  fine  contempt  for  the  rights  of 
conscience,  can  allow  its  laws  to  lie  neglected.  And 
grant  the  principles  from  which  the  men  reasoned, 
and  we  must  concede  that  these  were  legitimate 
inferences; — clear,  plain,  logical  deductions  from  a 
system  that  posits,  as  the  grand  parent  of  social  or- 
der, force,  whether  dubbed  as  matter,  or  social  con- 
tract, or  regal  power,  or  indeed  any  form  of  unmoral 
might. 

If,  then,  I  want  to  find  where  religious  freedom 
came  from  in  modern  times,  where  am  I  to  go? 
Lecky  says,  "Toleration  is  created  by  scepticism, 
and  belongs  to  a  sceptical  age."  But  all  modern  his- 
tory disproves  that  assertion.  Where  religion  is  made 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       221 

a  matter  of  conscience  and  not  of  the  magistrate,  tol- 
eration is  necessary.  Where  religion  is  made  no  mat- 
ter of  the  conscience,  but  of  the  magistrate,  intoler- 
ance and  persecution  arc  inevitable.  So  we  find  those 
Reformers  and  religious  thinkers  of  whom  I  have  al- 
ready spoken,  men  like  Jacobs,  like  Hanserd  Knollys, 
like  John  Robinson,  maintaining — religion  is  a  mat- 
ter of  conscience;  therefore  the  magistrate  ought  to 
leave  to  conscience  the  question  of  religion,  and  in 
no  way  interfere  with  it.  Roger  Williams,  having 
pleaded  in  England  and  in  New  England  for  tolera- 
tion, realized  religious  freedom  in  his  settlement  on 
Narragansett  Bay.  Harry  Yane,  the  younger,  a 
stern  and  true,  yet  most  devout  and  tender  spirit,  a 
typical  Puritan  and  Republican,  was  also  a  great 
advocate  of  the  same  principle,  with  faith  enough 
to  put  it  in  practice  when  he  was  in  power.  In 
these  days,  when  I  wish  to  brace  my  spirit,  to  feel 
the  strength  of  a  great  conviction  which  fears  no 
discussion,  and  lies  open  on  all  sides  to  the  light, 
which  it  craves  as  God's  own  gift,  where  do  I  so 
gladly  go  as  to  the  Areopagitica  of  John  Milton? 
There,  in  that  speech  for  unlicensed  printing,  stands 
forward  the  grandest  plea  for  freedom  of  thought 
which  the  English  language  or  any  other  language  con- 
tains. Later,  too,  did  not  the  ' '  Letters  on  Toleration" 
by  John  Locke,  reason  out,  on  narrower  and  less  noble 
grounds  it  is  true,  but  still,  on  religious  grounds,  tlio 
same  great  principle?  The  only  convincing  and  vic- 
torious pica  for  freedom  of  thought,  for  liberty  to  be- 
lieve according  to  reason  and  speak  according  to  con- 
science, is  the  one  that  finds  its  ultimate  principle 


222  Religion  in  History, 

and  basis  in  the  great  faith,  that  religion  belongs  to 
the  man  and  to  the  man's  God,  that  it  is  the  sacred 
inmost  possession  of  conscience,  and  must  be  free  from 
the  magistrate,  a  matter  in  which  the  responsibility 
is  to  God  only. 

When  you  go  from  the  actual  advocacy  to  the  at- 
tempted realization  of  the  principle,  our  position 
holds  even  more  completely.  Where,  as  a  matter  of 
historical  fact,  was  religious  freedom  first  realized  by 
a  state?  In  Holland.  She  had  won  freedom,  had 
shaken  off  Spain,  and  had  learned  from  her  own  bit- 
ter experience  what  freedom  and  religion  meant. 
And  so  almost  as  soon  as  she  had  achieved  liberty, 
she  became  the  home  of  the  persecuted  in  Europe. 
There,  within  the  very  country  which  had  been 
quickened,  revived,  created  by  a  great  religious  en- 
thusiasm, religious  freedom  reigned.  There  you 
might  find  the  French  Descartes  writing,  pleading, 
free  to  speak  as  became  the  father  of  modern  philo- 
sophy. There  you  might  find  Italian,  Spanish,  and 
Portuguese  Jews,  tolerated  while  intolerant.  Spi- 
noza, cast  out  by  the  synagogue,  but  tolerated  by  the 
reformed  state,  there  stands  forward  to  advocate  his 
Pantheism  and  his  political  theory.  There,  too,  you 
might  discover  English  Puritans  like  Perkins  and 
Ames,  like  Robinson  and  Jacobs,  erecting  their 
churches,  addressing  their  flocks,  free  to  speak  the 
thing  they  willed.  When  the  same  principles  were 
recognized  in  Rhode  Island,  by  Roger  Williams's 
settlement,  in  the  settlement  of  Penn,  and  finally 
through  all  the  states  of  the  American  Republic,  it 
was  done  for  religious  reasons,  in  vindication  of 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       223 

those  rights  conscience  most  strongly  aflarms  when 
it  most  strenuously  believes  that  God  is  its  only 
Sovereign,  and  that  where  He  reigns  no  man  or 
magistrate  can  be  allowed  to  interfere. 

But  when  Revolution  in  France  passed  into  the 
hands  of  Deists  and  Atheists,  what  happened?  Ay, 
what  happened?  I  do  not  simply  refer  to  the  way  in 
which  the  Church  was,  so  to  speak,  levelled  to  the 
dust,  and  the  clergy  expelled  or  sent  to  the  guillotine. 
I  refer  to  such  events  as  the  guillotining  of  Clootz 
and  Chaumette.  The  deistic,  the  Worship-of-the- 
Supreme-Being,  party  said,  ''  These  men  are  atheists: 
they  deny  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  a  doctrine 
which  comforted  Socrates  in  his  death:  the  idea  of 
the  Supreme  Being  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
is  a  continual  appeal  to  justice;  it  is,  therefore,  social 
and  republican,  and  so  the  men  who  deny  it  ought  to 
die."  And  on  this  very  ground,  maintained  and 
vindicated  by  Robespierre,  nineteen  of  the  worship- 
of-Reason  and  deity-of-the-people  party,  including 
'^  Anaxagoras"  Chaumette,  '  ^  Anacharsis"  Clootz,  and 
Hebert,  were  doomed  to  death,  sacrifices  to  their 
own  principle — ^^  There  is  now  one  god  only,  the 
people."  And  even  they  themselves,  Hebert  and 
Chaumette  and  Clootz,  the  men  of  the  atheistic  party, 
were  no  better.  To  utter  the  word  Providence  was 
denounced  as  a  crime,  and  to  publish  a  book  that 
expressed  belief  in  God  was  declared  a  crime  the  law 
ought  to  punish  and  prevent.  And  to-day,  if  you 
want  to  find  a  party  that  has  in  its  heart  the  will  to 
be  intolerant,  you  have  but  to  look  across  the  Chan- 
nel, and  there  you  will  find  the  party  that  is  most 


224  Religion  in  History, 

aggressively  negative  prepared  to  proceed  to  the  ex- 
tremest  measures  of  repression,  both  as  regards  the 
profession  and  practice  of  religion.  Political  liberty, 
liberty  of  thought  in  matters  religious,  was  made  by 
the  religion  of  Christ,  especially  as  it  existed  before 
it  was  civilly  established  and  after  it  was  reformed. 
It  alone  has  the  right  to  stand  and  say,  I  have  made 
liberty.  And  this  is  an  historical  fact  which  no  man 
can  gainsay. 

ii.  Then  there  is  the  matter  of  Equality.  Equality 
means  that  in  the  eye  of  the  law  and  of  justice  there 
is  no  difference  between  man  and  man.  Law  and 
justice  know  no  rich  and  know  no  poor:  know  no 
sovereign  and  know  no  beggar:  they  only  know  the 
man.  But  equality  means  more  than  this.  It  means 
not  of  course  that  inherent  capacity,  mental  endow- 
ment, personal  dignity  and  character  are  the  same  in 
all  men;  but  it  means  that  in  the  latent,  yet  actual 
ideal  of  humanity,  or  in  the  potential  yet  intrinsic 
worth  which  belongs  to  our  nature  as  human,  all  men 
are  equal.  Within  every  man  there  is  an  ideal  latent, 
perhaps  dead  and  even  buried,  but  still  an  ideal 
capable  of  resurrection:  and  it  is  this  ideal  of 
humanity  in  every  man  which  makes  the  true  equality. 
And  whence  came  the  ideal  which  constitutes  what 
we  term  equality?  It  came  into  the  world  Avhen  this 
principle  was  stated: — ^*  There  is  no  respect  of  per- 
sons with  God:  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons." 
That  was  the  first  great  yet  simple  formulization 
of  the  principle;  and  the  principle  lies  at  the  root 
of  all  our  later  social  development,  making  this 
evident  that  it  is  only  where  you  have  men  equally 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       225 

related  to  God,  God  equally  related  to  every  man, 
that  you  have  men  made  equal. 

iii.  As  with  Equality,  so  with  Fraternity.  It 
reposes  upon  the  great  faith  in  the  Fatherhood  of 
God  and  the  consequent  brotherhood  of  men.  You 
cannot  find  any  other  basis  so  deep,  so  broad,  so 
strong  as  this.  And  this  is  the  basis  Christianity 
laid,  without  which  the  belief  in  fraternity  would  never 
have  been,  and  could  not  even  now  continue  to  be.  It 
is  only  where  men  feel  as  sons  of  a  common  Father, 
that  they  feel  towards  each  other,  however  distant  in 
time  or  space,  however  dissimilar  in  race  or  speech 
or  nationality,  as  towards  brothers.  And  have  you 
considered  the  form  s  in  which  the  Christian  religion 
has  helped  men  to  realize  their  brotherhood?  ^  '•  Who 
is  my  neighbour?  "  asked  the  lawyer,  and  Jesus  made 
answer  by  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan;  and 
ever  since,  the  men  who  have  most  loved  Christ, 
have  been  men  who  have  done  into  practice  the 
moral  of  His  parable.  What  did  the  charities  of  the 
early  church  signify?  That  a  religion  had  arisen 
among  men  that  was  a  religion  of  brotherhood  and 
mutual  helpfulness.  What  do  modern  missions 
signify?  That  the  most  cultivated  and  high-blooded 
peoples  on  earth  recognize  their  kinship,  and  the 
obligations  of  their  kinship,  to  the  most  savage  and 
debased?  Science  loves  to  be  generous  and  benefi- 
cent, but  it  cannot  be  said  to  pity  the  savage;  knows 
not  what  better  to  do  with  him  than  to  speculate 
as  to  his  place  in  the  history  of  ci^dlization,  and  as  to 
the  causes  of  his  decline  and  decay  under  its  touch. 
Commerce  likes  to  discover  new  peoples  and  lands, 


226  Religion  in  History, 

but  only  that  she  may  find  a  new  market,  a  field 
where  by  more  advantageous  barter  she  can  increase 
the  riches  of  the  civilized,  even  though  it  be  by 
working  poverty  and  ruin  to  the  savage.  Certain 
imperial  peoples  love  to  find  new  scenes  for  the 
exercise  and  display  of  theii'  imperial  genius;  but 
imperial  policies  only  the  more  deeply  divide  the 
sovereign  from  the  subject  race.  These  are  not  the 
methods  either  for  creating  or  expressing  fraternity; 
where  the  stronger  man  sees  in  the  weaker  only  a 
means  for  his  own  instruction,  or  a  source  of  wealth, 
or  an  instrument  for  his  ends,  he  may  use  him  as  a 
tool,  but  he  will  never  think  of  him,  feel  to  him,  or 
act  towards  him,  as  a  brother.  But  Christian  missions 
witness  to  the  fact  that  the  Christian  religion  has 
accomplished  this  marvellous  feat.  It  has  made 
civilized  man  feel  that  he  and  the  savage  are  of  one 
blood,  that  the  savage  is  as  dear  to  God  as  he  is,  has 
as  vast  capabilities,  as  boundless  promise  of  being  as 
his  own  nature  can  boast.  The  religion  that  has 
created  this  sense  of  kinship  and  duty  is  the  true 
mother  of  man's  faith  in  human  fraternity. 

2.  I  deeply  regret  that  I  must  now  leave  out  a  large 
part  of  what  I  had  meant  to  say,  and  shall  only  ask 
you  to  consider  whence  came  the  great  forces  ameli- 
orative and  helpful  in  modern  society.  Take  for  ex- 
ample the  emancipation  of  the  slave — why  accom- 
plished, why  prosecuted,  by  whom  and  for  what 
reasons  ultimately  carried  through.  Were  not  the 
men  and  their  motives  altogether  Christian?  Then 
think  of  the  reform  of  prisons.  Can  you  forget  John 
Howard  and  Mrs.  Fry,  what  they  were  and  what 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Europe.       221 

they  did?  Consider,  too,  the  attempts  at  criminal 
reform — ragged  schools,  reformatories,  the  varied 
agencies  which  wed  mercy  with  justice  and  reform 
with  penalty.  If  you  look  even  at  the  great  broad 
field  of  war,  so  dread,  so  terrible  in  its  destructive- 
ness,  what  touches  it  with  the  gentle  spirit  of  mercy? 
Why  is  there  the  red  cross  on  the  white  ground? 
What  does  it  mean  but  that  the  minister  of  mercy  is 
the  minister  of  religion,  conscious  or  unconscious 
minister  perhaps,  yet  minister  still.  Had  time  per- 
mitted, I  should  also  have  surveyed  some  of  our 
modern  philosophies,  especially  those  that  seek  to 
create  a  religion  of  humanity,  and  should  have 
attempted  to  show  that  wherever  they  are  creative, 
energetic,  great  in  their  ameliorative  impulse,  they 
have  borrowed,  without  acknowledgment,  and  un- 
consciously perhaps,  but  still  borrowed  from  the 
religion  of  Christ.  This  only  must  I  ask  you  in 
conclusion  to  remember:  These  elements,  all  of 
them,  need  to  be  gathered  into  an  organic  whole, 
into  a  living  structure,  placed  in  relation  to  a  great 
throbbing  centre.  You  cannot  have  sporadic,  dis- 
membered, isolated  Christian  forces,  walking  up  and 
down  the  land  doing  their  work:  you  must  bring  all 
into  unity,  j^ou  must  centre,  converge,  weld  them 
into  the  great  central  thought,  into  the  mighty  living 
organism.  Without  Christ,  without  the  Eternal 
Father,  without  the  living  Saviour  and  the  living 
God,  they  are  impotent,  destined  to  slow,  inevitable 
death.  Men  and  brethren!  I  speak  to  you  as  unto 
men  who  love  order,  who  love  freedom,  who  love 
justice,  who  love  right.     What  has  come  to  you  as  a 


228  Beligion  in  History. 

glorious  heirloom  from  the  past,  a  splendid  force  that 
has  worked  out  your  highest  happiness,  your  best 
prosperity,  your  darling  principles  of  hope,  claims  as 
its  due  your  strenuous  loyalty  and  noblest  thanks. 
Faith,  life,  enthusiasm,  entire  devotion  of  the  spirit, 
are  the  simple  tribute  it  deserves. 


LECTURE  YI. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  IN  HISTORY  AND  IN  MODERN 
LIFE. 

The  lecture  of  to-night  is  to  deal  with  religion  in 
the  face  of  to-day,  especially  so  far  as  it  has 
light  to  shed  upon  the  great  and  the  vital  problems 
that  relate  to  the  welfare  and  to  the  wellbeing  of 
our  toiling  millions.  If  religion  be  what  it  has  been 
here  described  as  being,  it  ought  to  have  some  light 
to  shed  on  these  problems.  It  is  not  the  theoretical 
unbelief  of  to-day  that  troubles  me;  it  is  its  practical 
ungodliness.  The  worst  denial  is  not  the  denial  of 
the  name  of  God,  but  of  the  reign  of  God,  and  His 
reign  is  denied  whenever  men  confess  that  He  is, 
but  live  as  if  He  had  no  kingdom,  no  law  to  govern 
the  individual,  to  be  incorporated  or  realized  in  the 
society  or  the  state.  Men  have  been  too  anxious  to 
limit  religion,  to  keep  it  as  they  think  to  its  own 
province  and  work,  forgetting  that  the  province  of 
religion  is  the  whole  man  and  the  whole  life  of  all 
men.  To  narrow  the  sphere  or  the  authority  of 
religion  is  only  a  bad  way  of  impugning  its  truth, 
a  stealthy  way  of  evading  its  claims.  To  throw  the 
emphasis  from  the  inward  and  ethical   to  the  out- 


230  Religion  in  History. 

ward  and  ceremonial  is  but  a  more  pretentious  lorm 
of  evasion.  I  confess  that  I  am  sick  even  unto 
death  of  what  Ruskin  has  well  called  the  ^  '■  dramatic 
Christianity  of  the  organ  and  the  aisle,  of  dawn- 
service  and  twilight  revival,  gas-lighted  and  gas- 
inspired  Christianity,"  and  I  long  with  my  whole 
heart  to  see  all  our  cliurcnes  become  branches  of 
the  only  true  mother-church,  the  church  that  is  the 
mother  of  all  our  humanities,  because  the  home  of 
all  our  divinities,  the  bearer,  the  living  vehicle,  of 
the  great  purpose,  or  burden  God  sent  through  His 
Son  and  by  His  Spirit  to  man.  If  religion  were 
truly  interpreted  and  represented  in  the  living 
of  all  Christian  men,  as  it  ought  to  be,  I  have 
no  fear  as  to  its  being  believed.  It  needs  but 
Christian  men  and  churches  to  be  faithful  to  the 
mind  of  Christ  to  make  that  mind  reign  in  and 
over  modern  men. 

Now  the  aim  and  purpose  of  these  lectures  has 
been  to  exhibit  religion  in  its  larger  aspect,  in  its 
wider  historical  and  social  significance.  There  has 
been  no  attempt  at  philosophical  or  historical  apolo- 
getics, only  at  the  discovery  and  exposition  of  the 
forces  which  history  has  proved  to  have  worked  most 
for  our  common  human  good.  The  faith  of  Christ 
is  to  me  the  last  and  highest  truth,  the  worthiest  as 
concerns  God,  the  most  reasonable  as  it  relates  to 
man.  But  though  that  position  be  most  capable  of 
proof,  it  is  not  one  that  has  been  here  specifically 
attempted  to  be  proved.  I  may  at  some  future  time 
make  the  attempt;  for  I  do  not  deny  the  right  of 
inquiry  in  matters  of  faith,  on  the  contrary,  I  hold 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.         231 

it  a  most  sacred  duty.  Truth  loves  to  be  searched 
into,  to  be  inquired  after,  to  have  the  light  of  heaven 
let  in  upon  it  from  all  sides;  but  truth  discloses  her 
presence  to  none  but  the  pure  in  mind  and  heart, 
to  those  only  who  seek  her  out  of  sincerity  and 
great  love.  The  man  who  speaks  dishonourably  of 
another's  faith  does  no  honour  to  his  own;  the  man 
who  uses  a  dishonourable  weapon  in  the  battle  for 
the  truth  dishonours  truth,  and  to  dishonour  it  is  to 
be  disowned  of  the  truth,  and  so  to  lose  it.  For 
what  can  it  do  but  forsake  the  man  whose  soul  is 
forsaken  of  reverence? 


1.  Our  purpose,  then,  has  not  been  apologetic, 
but  simply  historical  and  expository,  an  attempt 
by  the  help  of  scientific  analysis  and  comparative 
criticism  to  discover  those  moral  and  religious  forces 
that  have  most  contributed  alike  to  the  individual 
and  common  good.  And  this  question  was  chosen 
because  it  seemed  at  once  the  most  radical  and  the 
most  relevant  to  the  problems  now  before  the  people. 
The  work  done  for  the  past  has  now  to  be  done  for 
the  present,  and  so  to-night  we  shall  attempt  a  further 
exposition  of  those  principles  we  have  been  studying 
in  history  in  their  relation  to  living  man,  or  simply 
to  our  political,  social,  industrial  questions.  Yet  it 
is  necessary  that  we  see  the  relation  of  our  new  dis- 
cussion to  our  old.  Mark,  then,  the  principle  which 
has  underlain  all  our  discussions: — Every  society  is 
built  up  on  certain  ,2:reat  beliefs  or  ideas.  It  articu- 
lates or  expresses  these  in  its  institutions,  laws,  ideals, 


232  Religion  in  History. 

aims.  The  beliefs  or  ideas  that  underlie  the  society 
or  state  are  the  truths  or  beliefs  that  constitute  its 
religion.  As  these  are,  its  institutions  must  be. 
Find  out  the  ultimate  beliefs  of  a  people  and  you 
will  find  out  the  character  of  its  institutions,  or  from 
the  study  of  its  institutions  you  can  work  back  to  its 
fundamental  beliefs.  Where  these  beliefs  are  bad, 
society  cannot  be  good.  Where  the  fundamental 
faith  is  in  a  might, — that  is,  in  an  oppressive,  ir- 
resistible force, — the  institutions  will  express  simply 
a  realized  tyranny,  a  struggle  of  conflicting  forces 
where  the  strongest  has  prevailed. 

Look  for  one  moment  at  certain  typical  religions. 
China  is  remarkable  for  its  ancestral  worship.  That 
is  its  most  common  and  its  most  ancient  worship; 
but  to  worship  ancestors  is  so  to  revere  the  past  as 
to  stand  for  ever  by  it.  The  people  who  worship 
their  forefathers  are  the  most  conservative  of 
peoples;  where  the  father  stood,  the  sons  try  to 
stand;  departure  from  the  old  law  is  last  impiety. 
So  China  has  been  through  thousands  of  years 
stationary,  has  hardly  known  change,  and  living  so, 
has  been  persistent,  remaining  while  other  more 
changeful  empires  pass  and  decay.  Or  look  at 
India.  As  we  have  seen,  the  ultimate  thought  in 
the  Indian  mind  is  Brahma.  Brahma  means  the 
universal  soul,  or  life;  it  is  but  the  equivalent  of 
necessity,  the  reign  of  a  force  that,  unresting,  runs 
through  all  forms  of  being,  one  in  essence,  and 
necessary  in  its  action,  while  ever  changing  its 
form.  In  harmony  therewith  they  have  conceived 
Brahma    as    the    universal    soul,  and    thinking    of 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.         233 

him  anthropomorphically,  have  said:  from  his  head 
was  made  the  Brahman,  the  man  of  the  priestly 
race,  from  his  breast  and  arms  the  Kshatriya, 
the  royal  and  warrior  caste,  from  his  legs  was 
made  the  Yaisya,  the  yeoman,  the  farmer,  and  from 
his  feet  were  made  the  Sudras,  the  toiling  class, 
the  lowest  caste  in  the  ancient  Hindu  world.  Now, 
that  is  a  religious  theory  become  a  social  tyranny. 
The  caste-order  is  the  order  of  God,  and  the  head 
has  not  only  the  right  of  commanding  the  arms  and 
the  trunk,  and  of  using  the  limbs,  but  of  treading 
ruthlessly  on  those  formed  from  the  feet  and  lying 
underneath  them.  Or  take,  as  before,  the  ancient 
empires  of  the  nearer  east,  Egypt  or  Assyria.  They 
conceived  emperor  or  king  as  divine.  He  owned 
the  nation,  all  the  people  were  his,  and  he  could  do 
with  his  own  as  he  pleased,  and  as  he  pleased  he 
did  with  his  own.  So  look  how  Tiglath-Pileser, 
Shalmanezer,  Sennacherib,  Assur-Bani-Pal,  and  the 
other  Babylonian  and  Assj-rian  conquerors,  led  forth 
their  mighty  thousands,  threw  their  armies  away 
in  the  desert,  or  at  a  siege,  and  cared  nothing  for 
the  armies  they  threw  away,  only  for  their  own  pur- 
poses or  ends.  Now  contrast  with  this  the  past 
week.^  Every  home  in  England  has  thrilled  with 
pain — why?  In  an  African  desert  a  handful  of 
heroic  Englishmen  were  surrounded  and  assailed  by 
an  army  of  strong  and  brave  Soudanese,  and  there, 
in  the  unequal  conflict,  11 0  of  our  brothers  are  said 
to  have  perished.     And  how  have  we  received  the 

1  Sunday,  March  16.— On   tho  Thursday  before  the  battle  of  El  Teh 
had  been  fought. 


234  Religion  in  History. 

news?  The  thought  of  those  brothers  of  ours 
dying  there,  and  no  less  the  thought  of  the  brave 
barbarians  who  so  strenuously  fought  and  so  will- 
ingly died  for  altar  and  home,  is  to  this  people  a 
thought  of  suffering,  brings  a  sense  of  personal  pain 
and  loss.  Now,  why  do  we  so  value  human  life, 
while  in  the  ancient  world  life  was  thrown  so 
thoughtlessly  away.  To  ask  anew  that  question 
is  right  and  necessary,  for  in  it  lies  the  difference 
between  two  worlds.  You  will  never  build  up  a 
free  and  ordered  state,  you  will  never  have  wealth 
well  distributed,  you  will  never  have  honour  and 
order,  good  in  their  kind,  realized,  unless  you  esteem 
man  noble,  and  esteem  all  men  alike.  Here,  then 
is  the  problem : — high  order,  waiting  on  a  right  idea 
of  man,  is  in  process  of  being  realized  now,  but  was 
not  reafized  in  the  old  world,  nor  is  realized  in  any 
eastern  heathenism  —  why  this  difference?  The 
answer  is  the  answer  that  comes  back  over  all  the 
ages;  because  of  what  has  come  through  Christ. 

2.  Let  me  recall,  though  but  for  a  moment,  the 
argument  of  the  past  lectures.  They  proceeded, 
when  the  question  became  historical,  from  this 
position:  all  old  religions  prior  to  the  religion  of 
Israel  had  no  moral  character,  because  no  moral 
deity.  Being  without  moral  deities  and  religions, 
the  nations  were  not  built  upon  moral  principles  or 
for  moral  ends,  but  only  through  despotism  or  for 
personal  or  sectional  interests.  The  coming,  through 
Moses,  of  the  high  faith  in  Jehovah  and  His  law  laid 
the  foundation  for  a  new  order,  made  one  possible. 
The  order  was  not  a  priest's,  the  order  was  not  a 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.  235 

king's,  it  was  God's,  and  as  God's  based  on  His  moral 
law,  which  expressed  His  moral  nature.  It  made 
every  man  responsible  to  God  directly.  It  made  God 
govern  every  man  alike.  Where  God  is  the  common 
Ruler,  the  distinction  between  king  and  subject  may 
remain  on  the  lower  and  limited  field  of  the  State, 
but  its  old  absolute  character  is  lost,  for  on  the  higher 
plane,  where  temporal  distinctions  disappear  in  eter- 
nal, both  stand  alike  as  subjects  of  God,  equal  in  the 
eye  of  His  law.  The  rich  and  the  poor  meet  together, 
the  Lord  is  the  maker  of  them  all.  And  standing  equal 
in  the  eye  of  His  law,  then  there  is  a  worth  attached 
to  the  man,  to  the  single  person,  to  the  individual  soul, 
that  makes  his  sutferings,  the  loss  of  his  life  or  of  his 
happiness,  a  crime  against  God  and  against  the  order 
He  instituted.  Starting  from  that  rudimentary  point, 
note  how  the  ancient  Jewish  state  was  built  up.  It 
was  built  up  in  order  that  the  will  of  God, — that  is, 
His  moral  law, — might  in  the  relations  of  man  to 
man  reign,  and  in  the  action  of  state  and  people 
be  realized.  Now,  the  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  taken  up  and  incorporated  in  the  New,  but 
extended  into  a  universalism.  God  became  the 
Father  of  all  men,  loved  all  men,  all  men  became 
brethren,  the  human  race  one  vast  family,  every  unit 
stood  to  every  other  as  brother  to  brother,  and  the 
duties  enjoined  were  fraternal  duties,  the  duties  of 
universal  neighbourliness  and  brotherliness.  On 
this  great  position  an  entirely  new  order  of  the 
world  could  be  built,  an  entirely  new  course  and 
organization  of  humanity  could  take  place.  Man 
at  first  did  not  understand  what  liad  come.     The 


236  Religion  in  History. 

old  was  too  strong  for  the  new,  out  of  the  ancient 
religions,  out  of  the  ancient  state,  old  forces  came 
into  the  Christian  society  and  reigned  there,  yet 
in  spite  of  these,  through  the  form  in  which  they 
were  incorporated,  great  Christian  truths  worked, 
and  worked  penetratingly,  lovingly,  assimilatively, 
through  the  whole  of  society  and  the  life  of 
man.  And  when  later,  in  a  moment  of  supreme 
religious  fervour,  which  was  also  a  moment  of 
rare  intellectual  quickening,  the  world  tried  to 
go  back  to  the  nobler  primitive  thought,  then 
new  forces,  released  and  relieved,  created  higher 
liberty  in  the  state,  purer  thought  in  the  life,  more 
equal  justice  between  man  and  man.  And  so  the 
new  spiritual  force  has  been  at  work,  subordinating 
the  old  unto  itself,  and  the  humanity  that  is  rising 
is  a  humanity  distinctively  in  its  basis  of  Christ, 
though  for  God. 

II. 

1.  Now,  mark,  the  conclusion  of  our  past  discus- 
sions is  the  foundation  of  our  new.  The  conclusion 
is  this,  the  great  fundamental  Christian  beliefs,  the 
beliefs  as  to  God,  as  to  man,  as  to  man  in  relation  to 
God  and  His  purposes,  have  supplied  a  new  basis 
for  human  thought,  and  so  a  new  foundation  for 
human  society;  and  the  society  that  is  being  built  up 
on  this  basis  is  radically  unlike  the  ancient  society. 
Now,  observe,  I  say  is  being,  I  do  not  say  has  been, 
built  up.  The  work  is  in  process.  It  is  not  com- 
pleted, and  in  the  doing  of  it  every  man  of  us 
ought  to  bear  his  part.     But  while   the  building 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.         237 

proceeds,  worked  by  the  hands  of  men,  it  is  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  beliefs  directly  created  by  Christ. 
These  beliefs  may  be  described  as,  borrowing  a 
word  from  one  of  the  greatest  philosophers,  archi- 
tectonic, that  is,  they  are  beliefs  that  while  they 
construct,  regulate  the  structure,  govern  it  in  all 
its  parts  and  in  its  ultimate  design.  Their  action 
has  been  illustrated  in  history,  for  wherever  Christ's 
personal  influence  has  been  mightiest  and  most  im- 
mediate, there  the  building  has  most  victorious- 
ly proceeded.  It  has  been  with  Him,  in  Him, 
through  Him,  that  all  has  been  done.  Did  time 
permit,  I  would  take  you  a  wide  survey  of  the  an- 
cient ideals  of  humanity,  and  compare  them  with 
our  own.  I  would  take  you,  for  example,  to  the  an- 
cestral worship  of  China,  the  adoration  of  heaven, 
as  prescribed  and  followed  by  the  ancient  sages,  and 
would  show  you  this  worship  making  a  people  that 
may  not  move,  that  lives  on  in  a  kind  of  permanent 
immobility;  or  I  would  take  you  to  the  ancient 
Hindoo  ideal  as  it  stands  incarnated  in  the  laws  of 
Manu.  These  laws  determine  a  man's  future  by 
his  relation  to  the  priestly  caste.  If  a  man  de- 
spises a  priest,  stands  in  his  way,  or  uses  profane 
speech  of  him,  he  is  sentenced  to  painful  punish- 
ment, here  and  hereafter.  If  a  Brahman  woman 
breaks  her  caste  by  marriage,  there  follows  degrada- 
tion for  her,  and  for  her  oflspring,  and  for  their  off- 
spring, degradation  in  ever  descending  degrees. 
There  we  find  a  whole  society  fitted  into  an  iron 
framework,  built  up,  inflexible,  immovable,  accord- 
ing to  the  mind  of  a  tyrannical  priesthood.     Or  I 


238  Religion  in  History. 

would  take  you  to  the  greater  ideas  that  lie  in 
Plato,  in  the  Republic  and  in  the  Laws,  already  in  a 
way  sketched,  making  the  modified  Greek  Republic 
possible,  yet  making  a  humanity  utterly  void  and 
mean.  He,  great  as  he  was,  thanked  providence 
that  he  was  born  a  Greek,  and  no  barbarian,  free 
and  no  slave.  To  be  a  barbarian!  It  had  been 
better  not  to  have  been  born  than  to  have  had  so  to 
speak  as  to  emit  sounds  that  could  hardly  be  held 
articulate  or  reasonable  speech. 

But,  now,  what  is  our  own  modern  dream,'  our 
ideal  vision?  All  this  great  humanity  forms  a 
mighty  family.  Man,  in  all  his  units,  stands  the 
creature  of  God,  His  offspring  eternally  loved  by 
Him,  called  by  Him  through  love  into  being.  Man 
as  a  race  is  constituted  in  all  his  branches  a  unity 
through  the  one  God,  and  is,  as  an  individual,  a 
being  who  owes  duties  to  every  other  man,  owes 
duties  of  good,  of  service,  of  truth,  of  honour,  of 
right,  of  grace.  There  is  here  a  notion  of  man,  of 
humanity,  that  gives  a  dignity  to  the  person  and 
a  nobility  to  the  race  unimagined  by  the  ancients, 
that  makes  of  human  nature  a  higher  thing,  and  of 
hun;an  life  a  nobler  thing.  And  I  anew  affirm,  the 
life  we  live  and  know,  is,  while  in  all  its  noble  ele- 
ments the  direct  creation  of  Christ,  yet  at  best  re- 
mains only  the  promise  of  what  He  has  still  to 
achieve. 

2.  Now,  I  should  have  liked  exceedingly,  in  the 
light  of  our  discussions,  to  have  compared  these 
Christian  beliefs  with  certain  modern  ideas,  pro- 
posed  as   substitutes  for  them,  and   have  judged 


Christian  Eeligion  in  Modern  Life.  239 

these  beliefs  and  ideas  comparatively.  For  example, 
men  say,  if  we  could  get  rid  of  the  human  soul  and  its 
immortality,  how  much  happier  we  should  be;  the 
belief  in  a  continued  being  hereafter  only  makes  the 
here  more  intolerable.  Now  one  great  advantage 
of  the  comparative  study  of  religion  is  this: — When- 
ever a  statement  like  that  is  made,  you  at  once 
turn  to  places  or  religions  where  such  things 
have  been  realized,  look  at  them,  analyze  their 
elements  and  action,  and  so  discover  their  intrinsic 
quality  and  essential  results.  Now,  there  is  a 
religion  that  does  deny  souls,  and  knows  no  con- 
scious personal  immortality.  What  of  that  religion 
— the  religion  of  Buddha — so  far  as  concerns  happi- 
ness in  this  life?  It  is  the  apotheosis  of  misery,  the 
religion  that  declares  that  life  is  not  worth  living, 
and  that  the  supreme  good  is  the  entire  escape  from 
personal  being.  Observe,  where  suffering  is  glorified, 
is  made  a  sort  of  deity  that  devours  the  very  notion 
of  life,  the  religion  instead  of  saving  from  pain,  is 
one  that  arrests  progress,  that  entirely  bars  secular 
action,  that  prevents  the  highest  social  forms  of  life 
from  being  realized;  and  these,  precisely,  are  the 
results  that  have  followed  the  religion  of  Buddha. 
Again,  there  is  the  notion  abroad,  clothed,  too, 
in  the  terms  of  a  very  large  and  audacious  philoso- 
phy, that  we  might  find  in  matter  or  in  force  a  sub- 
stitute for  God,  or,  at  least,  the  term  that  could  best 
express  the  permanent  and  efficient  course  of  the 
world  we  know.  Now,  note,  I  will  not  discuss  the 
question  from  the  metaphysical  point  of  view,  other- 
wise I  should  ask — pray,  how  do  you  know  matter. 


240  Religion  in  History. 

and  what  may  matter  be?  If  you  subtract  mind  and 
the  qualities  mind  supplies  to  matter,  what  of 
matter  may  remain,  and  what  of  your  knowledge 
of  its  qualities?  A  late  distinguished  thinker, 
John  Stuart  Mill,  defined  matter  as  the  permanent 
possibility  of  sensation,  but  he  carefully  avoided 
telling  us  what  the  permanent  possibility  of  sensa- 
tion meant.  Does  it  mean  the  permanent  possibility 
of  force,  or  does  it  mean  the  permanent  possibility 
of  mind?  Sensation  is  a  mental  state,  something 
caused  or  experienced,  derivative  therefore  and  not 
ultimate;  its  essential  element  is  the  conscious,  the 
perceived,  the  felt.  And  so  to  speak  of  matter  as  a 
permanent  possibility  of  sensation  makes  it  subjec- 
tive, not  objective,  that  which  is  known  through 
mind,  not  capable  of  definition  otherwise  than  in  its 
terms.  Or  suppose  you  take  a  distinguished  physi- 
cist, Professor  Tyndall,  who  in  a  large  way  in  a 
presidential  address  to  the  British  Association  led 
us  an  excursion  into  a  past  which  he  very  imperfect- 
ly knew,  indeed,  could  not  be  said  to  know  at  all. 
He  there  told  us — matter  has  the  promise  and  the 
potency  of  every  form  and  quality  of  life,  but  when 
we  began  to  seek  after  this  matter,  we  were  told  it 
is  mysterious,  an  inscrutable  power,  somethimg 
utterly  unknown.  And  if  we  call  in  the  great  master 
of  Agnosticism  and  ask  him  for  his  proof  that  matter 
or  force  is  the  known  ultimate,  he  will  tell  you  that 
you  know  it  because  it  resists  you.  The  force  with- 
in meets  resistant  forces  without,  and  you  know, 
therefore,  matter  to  be.  But,  look,  take  away  the 
force  within,  and  what  of  the  forces  without?    You 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.  241 

must  postulate  will,  or  how  can  you  discover  or 
conceive  force?  you  must  postulate  thought,  or 
how  can  you  find  matter  or  describe  what  property 
or  quality  it  has? 

But  leaving  aside  the  metaphysics,  and  looking 
at  the  question  as  one  concerned  merely  with  a  basis 
for  society  and  state,  for  an  order  and  law  to  help 
the  men  who  work,  what  then?  Well,  if  matter 
be  the  ultimate  or  causal  reality,  it  means  the  reign 
of  the  mechanical,  the  necessary,  the  reign  of  force, 
but,  mark,  when  it  comes  to  be  applied  as  a  reign 
of  force  to  life,  to  the  region  of  social  and  industrial 
structure,  how  does  it  act?  The  weakest  go  to  the 
wall,  the  strongest  survive.  All  that  are  feeble 
perish  or  are  crushed,  all  that  are  mighty  reign  and 
endure.  When  it  comes  to  the  region  of  political 
life,  what  is  the  action?  The  same.  Might  is  the 
regnant  force  or  power,  strength  is  victor;  the  king 
is  the  person  who  is  mightiest,  the  one  who  has 
subdued  all.  Translate  that  into  speech  for  modern 
times,  and  it  means  this:  wherever  you  have  most 
might,  the  greatest  strength  and  the  power  to  use  it, 
there  you  have  the  source  of  order,  the  power  that 
reigns,  the  very  reason  and  essence  of  government. 
But  what  do  you  call  that?  Why  you  call  it  tyranny, 
despotism,  the  hardest,  most  obdurate  and  inflexible. 
Thus  from  mechanical  force,  taken  as  the  ultimate 
datum  of  consciousness  and  factor  of  change,  and  so 
as  the  new  basis  of  social  order,  we  shall  have  the 
worst  tyranny  the  world  ever  saw,  tyranny  that 
would  throw  life  away  without  grudge  or  care, 
tyranny  that  would  expel  morality,  annihilate  pro- 


242  Religion  in  History, 

gress,  and  make  the  rich  ever  richer,  the  poor  ever 
poorer,  marching  onward  like  a  mighty  law  of  nature 
which  sets  its  ruthless  foot  down  on  every  feeble 
cause,  crushing  under  it  everything  that  could  not  by 
sheer  and  simple  might  assert  its  right  to  be.  That 
reign  would  be  the  ruin  of  all  our  noblest  order,  the 
loss  of  our  grandest  gains. 

Now  I  would  it  were  possible  to  look  at  some  of 
the  ways  of  evading  this  conclusion  that  have  become 
very  fashionable  in  these  recent  years.  One  distin- 
guished thinker  wrote  lately  on  ^  '■  The  Religion  of  the 
Future, "  and  another  not  less  distinguished  thinker 
described  his  doctrine  as  ^^  The  Ghost  of  Religion," 
and  went  on  to  propound  the  grand  Comtean  thesis 
of  a  religion  of  humanity,  where  humanity  was  the 
object  of  worship,  and  humanity  was  loved,  and 
served  as  the  modern  and  natural  deity.  Now,  I 
have  no  special  care  or  concern  to  ask  respecting 
the  genesis  of  Comte's  idea  of  humanity  as  a  great 
being.  But  what  his  disciples  think  concerning  that 
as  a  grand  new  generalization  of  positive  science  and 
philosophy  only  shows  their  pathetic  innocence  as  to 
the  actual  facts  of  history  and  faith.  There  is  a 
notion  of  collective  humanity  far  grander  than 
Comte's.  There  is  a  notion  of  humanity  which 
makes  it  one  immense  family,  a  family  of  God; 
makes  it  one  immense  society,  a  society  of  sons 
who  are  brothers — one  immense  household,  where 
every  member  is  bound  to  serve  the  others,  that  by 
this  service  he  may  the  better  serve  his  own  Eternal 
Father.  That  was  a  grander  idea  than  Comte's, 
penetrated  throughout  by  a  principle  of  tremendous 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.  243 

energy,  which  could  build  up  and  organize  the  race 
into  a  vital  unity.  His  is  but  a  headless  humanity, 
an  aggregation  of  atoms,  no  living  organism.  It 
rises,  he  knows  not  whence,  moves  across  the  earth, 
and  vanishes,  he  knows  not  whither.  But  this  is  a 
humanity  lifted  into  eternity,  living  in  the  life  of 
God,  a  humanity  loved  of  God,  redeemed  of  Him, 
intended  to  be  perfected  in  all  its  parts  and  in  all  its 
members,  that  it  may  live  in  holiest  fellowship  with 
Him.  Every  man  who  does  good  unto  the  least  of 
men,  does  it  unto  God:  practical  beneficence  in  time, 
the  love  that  suffers  unto  the  saving  of  man  is  the 
noblest  service  of  the  Eternal.  That  is  a  sublime 
idea.  In  its  presence  the  positive  notion  is  indeed 
the  veriest  ghost  of  religion,  spectral,  impalpable, 
impotent,  save  to  the  visionary  who  sees  it. 

3.  Let  us  came  back,  then,  to  our  position,  though 
only  that  we  may  re-aifirm  it  the  more  strongly;  the 
Christian  religion  is  by  virtue  of  its  very  nature  crea- 
tive of  a  new  mankind,  constitutive  of  a  new  society. 
Its  fundamental  principles  are  architectonic,  supply 
at  once  the  basis  and  the  regulative  ideal  for  the 
renewed  humanity.  It  is  meant  to  create  a  perfect 
state  through  perfect  men,  and  it  certainly  does  not 
mean  to  leave  its  renewed  men  under  the  control  of 
an  unspiritual  order.  Do  not  think  that  I  am  speak- 
ing new  things,  they  are  things  as  old  as  Christianity. 
At  its  birth  our  religion  was  possessed  of  a  divine 
ambition,  for  it  was  inspired  by  divine  truth,  and 
articulated  a  divine  design.  Christ's  coming  was 
no  accident;  it  had  been  purposed  from  eternity. 
Nature  and  man  had  been  alike  founded  on  and  by 


244  Religion  in  History, 

Him.  So  one  apostle  said:  ''All  things  were  made 
by  Him,  and  without  Him  was  not  anything  made 
that  was  made."  He  was  ''the  true  Light"  and 
"the  true  Life,"  and  there  was  no  true  life,  no  true 
light,  in  the  world  that  did  not  come  from  Him. 
Another  apostle  said,  "By  Him  were  all  things 
created  that  are  in  heaven  and  earth;  "  and  ' '  in  Him 
all  things  hold  together,"  stand  in  order  or  system. 
As  He  is  the  source.  He  is  also  the  means  and  end, 
for  through  Him  and  to  Him  are  all  things.  And 
so  He  is  represented,  not  only  as  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  but  as  the  One  in  whom  all  things,  both 
which  are  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  are  to  be  gathered 
together,  summed  up,  or  made  into  a  unity.  Now 
ideas  of  that  kind  signify  a  large  faith,  the  faith  that 
1  all  things  were  created  and  constituted  in  Christ,  that 
!  as  He  is,  on  the  one  side,  the  image  of  the  invisible 
God,  so  He  is,  on  the  other,  the  ideal  or  regulative 
principle  of  the  visible  creation.  Applied  to  our 
present  subject  this  means,  that  Christ  was  intended 
to  be,  in  the  fullest  sense,  a  Saviour,  not  only  of  the 
individual,  but  also  of  society,  making  the  man 
new,  but  doing  it  that  He  might  renew  mankind. 
Within  Him  were  the  energies  needed  to  create  a 
perfect  order,  a  holy  society,  a  humanity  that  should 
articulate  the  Creator's  ideal.  The  work  that  He 
came  to  do  was  to  reconcile  man  to  God,  to  bring 
alike  our  nature  as  persons  and  the  order  in  which 
we  lived  and  worked  into  harmony  with  the  will  of 
God.  And  so  He  was  the  Son  of  Man  who  made 
man  into  the  Son  of  God,  the  Redeemer,  delivering 
from  sin,  the  Saviour,  bringing  into  life  eternal.    The 


Christian  Beligion  in  Modern  Life.         245 

grand  thing  about  His  mission  was  its  positive  aspect 
— His  saving  man,  and  the  completeness  of  His  sal- 
vation. The  Christian  religion  had  indeed  an  awful 
sense  of  sin,  a  deep  sense  of  misery;  but  that  is  only 
the  reverse  side  of  its  majestic  sense  of  God,  its 
sublime  idea  of  man.  It  is  because  it  conceives  man 
to  be  so  great  that  it  feels  his  sin  to  be  so  terrible; 
it  is  because  it  conceived  man  to  be  so  near  of  kin  to 
God  that  it  allowed  him  such  susceptibility  to  suffer- 
ing, such  faculty  of  gain,  such  capacity  for  loss.  But 
as  was  the  loss,  so  is  the  salvation.  It  is  not  finished 
when  a  man  is  forgiven,  or  has  obtained  peace  with 
God;  it  is  completed  only  when  Christ  is  all  and  in 
all — that  is,  when  humanity  has  been  built  up  in  all 
its  parts  and  regulated  in  all  its  relations  by  the  ideal 
of  love  and  sonship  that  had  lived  from  eternity  in 
the  bosom  of  God. 

III. 

You  see,  then,  there  are,  as  I  conceive  it,  archi- 
tectonic principles  in  the  religion  of  Christ;  and  it  is 
the  simplest  and  most  rudimentary  of  these  that  I 
wish  to  apply  to  our  political,  social,  and  industrial 
questions.  This  is  only  a  small  branch  of  an 
immense  subject;  but  I  am  anxious  so  to  handle  it 
as  to  illustrate  for  our  time  the  significance  of  the 
Christian  religion.  These  questions  will  suflBciently 
test  its  right  to  be  the  organizing  principle  of  the 
noblest  society,  and  the  regulative  law  of  the  truest 
life. 

1.  Our  political,  social,  and  industrial  questions, 
while  distinct,  are  so  related  as  to  form  an  organic 


246  Religion  in  History. 

whole.  You  cannot  touch  one  without  touching  all 
the  rest;  the  body  politic  is  as  sensitive  and  as  much 
an  organic  unity,  as  the  body  of  the  living  man. 
Our  political  questions  concern  man  as  a  citizen, 
with  the  rights  and  duties  proper  to  one;  they  touch 
his  relation  to  the  state,  and  the  state's  to  him.  Our 
social  questions  concern  man's  place  and  functions, 
duties  and  ri'ghts,  as  a  part  of  a  mighty  organism, 
whose  members  are  human  beings;  and  view  or- 
ganism and  members  in  their  mutual  relations  and 
obligations,  as  affected  by  and  affecting  each  other. 
Our  industrial  questions  concern  the  creation,  ac- 
cumulation and  distribution  of  wealth,  regard  man 
as  producer,  distributer,  consumer,  as  a  being  capa- 
ble of  toil,  yet  needing  rest,  with  capital,  land  or 
money  or  skill,  that  he  wishes  to  lend  or  sell,  that 
he  may  obtain  or  create  a  wealthier  condition  of 
being.  These  provinces  of  thought  and  action, 
though  distinct,  are  inseparable.  Every  question 
raised  in  the  one  has  its  correlative  in  the  other,  and 
the  point  of  unity  is  man.  He  is  the  living  and  sen- 
sitive atom  that  thrills  with  pleasure  or  writhes  in 
pain  with  every  current  that  passes  through  the 
body,  political,  social  or  industrial. 

i.  Now,  if  we  are  to  consider  the  Christian  religion 
in  relation  to  these  questions,  we  must  do  so  in  the 
light  of  some  simple  principles,  yet  they  must  be 
those  of  the  architectonic  order.  Now,  our  simplest, 
yet  mightiest,  principle  is  given  us  in  the  idea  of  God 
as  manifested  in  Christ,  the  Father  as  declared  by  the 
only  begotten  Son.  What  was  the  purpose  of  God 
relative  to  man,  alike  in  creation  and  redemption? 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.         247 

His   good — his   highest   good.      Man  may  have  as 
his  chief  end  to  glorify  God,  but  God  finds  His  glory 
— and  in  the  light  of  Christ's  words  and  work  it  is 
seen  to  be  the  only  godlike  glory  possible — in  pro- 
moting the  good  of  man.    As  He  intends  that,  so  He 
means  that  all  the  godlike  energies  in  the  universe 
shall  contribute  to  it.    But  what  is  for  man  the  chief 
good?     It  consists  in  two  elements,  in  the  union,  as 
the  moralist  would  say,  of  virtue  and  pleasure,  or, 
as  the  religious  man,  of  holiness  and  happiness.     In 
the  state  of  perfect  good,  virtue  is  completely  happy, 
holiness  has  attained  beatitude.    But  what  does  this 
involve?     The  perfect  man,  but   also  the   perfect 
state,  the  state  ordered  and  administered  in  perfect 
righteousness,  where  the  virtue  within  has  its  mirror 
and  reflection  in  the  order  without.     We  could  not 
have  the  highest  good  with  vice,  for  it  is  hateful, 
envious,  miserable,  seeks  only  to  get  pleasure,  loves 
only   to   inflict    pain;    so   virtue   is  necessary,  the 
holiness  that  loves  to  do  the  best  and  obey  the  holiest. 
Nor  could  the  highest  good  be  found  in  a  vicious 
state;  the  good,  the  perfect  man  may  live  there,  but 
the  evil  without  would  hate  him,  and  he  could  not 
love  it;  there  might  be  the  joy  of  conflict,  but  there 
could  not   be   the   highest  joy,  the  joy  of  perfect 
harmony,  of  the  constant  motion  that  is  constant  rest. 
In  order  then  to  the  chief  good,  the  righteous  man 
must  live  in  a  righteous  state;    virtue  within  and 
virtue  without  must  dwell  together  in  beautiful  and 
holy  unity.     But  if  God  means   that  each  person 
realize  the  chief  good,  what  ideal  does  He  set  before 
us  for  society?     This :  that  the  individuals  composing 


248  Religion  in  History. 

it  shall,  every  one  of  them,  be  perfectly  virtuous  or 
perfectly  holy,  and  that  the  state  into  which  they  are 
organized  shall  in  every  respect  be  perfectly  ordered 
and  perfectly  righteous,  an  altogether  good  and  holy 
state.  No  less  an  ideal  as  respects  man,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  society,  on  the  other,  can  satisfy  the 
Christian  idea  of  God. 

ii.  Now  this,  you  will  confess,  is  no  mean  ideal, 
and  rests  on  no  contemptible  or  ignoble  principle. 
We  may  be  an  infinite  distance  from  its  realization, 
but  it  is  a  matter  of  infinite  importance  that  we  feel 
ourselves  held  bound  to  work  for  it  and  to  travel 
with  our  faces  towards  it;  making,  while  we  do  so, 
the  present  better,  and  bringing  the  golden  future 
more  near.     To  have  conceived  this  ideal  is  to  feel 
man  ennobled,  is  to  have  gained  a  brighter  view  of 
the  prospects  and  possibilities  of  our  kind.     Yet  on 
what   does  it  rest?     On   the   notion  of  God  as   a 
Spiritual  Father  and  Sovereign  on  the  one  hand, 
ynd,  on  the  other,  on  the  notion  of  man  as  His  son 
and  subject,  bound  to  be  obedient  to  Him  and  to 
realize  His  order.     Now  let  me  ask  you  a  simple 
question — Do  you  know  any  principle  so  able  as 
this  to  do  large  and  generous  justice  to  the  noblest 
possibilities  of  order  and  progress  in  the  state,  and 
of  happiness  and  manhood  in  the  man?     The  idea 
of  humanity,  you  say;  but  Christ  created  the  idea  of 
humanity,  and  divorced  from  Him  it  is  but  a  bastard 
idea,   at  once   emasculated   and  depraved.     What 
value  is  there  in  an  idea  that  is  but  an  impotent 
abstraction,  that  gives  no  moral  source,  no  moral 
sovereign,  and  no  moral  end  to  human  life,  either 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life,         249 

individual  or  collective?  If  you  renounce  this 
Christian  principle,  where  will  you  find  a  basis  for 
your  social  structure?  for  a  basis  you  must  find; 
and  remember  this — as  is  the  basis,  such  must  the 
structure  be.  Suppose  we  enquire  at  the  men  best 
able  to  advise  us  in  this  matter,  really  representative 
and  creative  thinkers,  who  have  attempted  to  find 
another  than  the  Christian  basis  for  society.  We 
shall  find  that  they  confirm  the  truth  of  the  argu- 
ment we  have  before  pursued.  There  is  Hobbes, 
an  honest  and  courageous  Materialist,  who  did  not 
fear  to  deduce  from  his  first  principles  their 
rigorous  logical  results.  To  believe  in  matter  as 
the  ultimate  ground  and  cause  of  all  things,  is  to 
believe  in  the  supremacy  and  sufficiency  of  force, 
and  in  a  conflict  of  forces  the  strongest  must  prevail. 
Carry  out  that  doctrine  in  the  arena  of  politics,  and 
you  have  Hobbes's  theory,  the  most  forcible  man  is 
king.  The  original  state  was  a  state  of  war,  that 
is,  a  conflict  of  opposing  forces;  order  came  from 
the  victory  of  the  mightiest,  which  means  that  the 
strongest  force  prevailed;  the  victor  became  the 
sovereign,  his  will  became  the  law,  made  the  right, 
instituted,  constituted  the  order  and  relations  in 
which  the  people  lived.  That  is  a  clear  and  in- 
telligible theory,  massive  in  its  simplicity,  rigorous 
in  its  consistency,  but  what  does  it  mean?  The 
most  absolute  tyranny,  despotism  unrelieved.  Let 
us  try  another.  Rousseau  hated  Materialism,  but 
wished  to  find  a  social  doctrine  that  should,  apart 
from  Christianity,  secure  to  all  men  their  natural 
rights.     And  what  did  he  propose?    The   theory 


250  Religion  in  History, 

of  a  ^'Social  Contract."  Men  met  together  and 
agreed  on  the  conditions  on  which  they  would 
associate;  signed,  as  it  were,  a  pre-historical  con- 
tract of  co-operation,  which  concluded,  they  laid 
aside  their  isolation  or  individualism,  and  combined 
in  a  society  or  state.  Those  who  kept  to  the 
contract  were  the  lawful  citizens,  those  who  broke 
it  by  claiming  too  much  or  by  doing  too  little,  were 
the  guilty.  But,  mark,  a  society  held  together  by 
a  covenant  or  bond  is  an  artificial  society;  the 
bond,  too,  is  in  this  case  an  historical  fiction, 
made  all  the  falser  by  making  the  savage  the 
ideal  or  standard  for  the  civilized  man.  Humanity 
bound  to  fulfil  an  imaginary  primitive  bond,  has 
lost  at  once  the  rights  of  the  present  and  the 
inspiration  of  the  future,  and  renounced  the  idea 
of  order  and  the  hope  of  progress.  Again,  David 
Hume,  subtlest  and  most  consistent  of  Sceptics, 
always,  as  we  saw.  Sceptic-like  opposed  to  the 
highest  human  liberty,  said,  ''Government  has  no 
other  object  or  purpose  than  the  distribution  of 
justice,  or,  in  other  words,  the  support  of  the  twelve 
judges. "  And  why?  ' '  Every  man  must  be  supposed 
a  knave,"  with  no  other  end  but  his  private  interest, 
which  he  must  be  prevented  gratifying  at  the  expense 
of  the  public.  So  government  in  its  last  analysis  is 
a  plan  which  a  multitude  of  knaves  have  adopted,  if 
not  for  making  each  other  honest,  yet  for  keeping 
by  fear  of  punishment  dishonesty  within  bounds. 
Could  you  conceive  a  more  miserable  basis  for 
politics,  or  one  that  did  more  injustice  alike  to  the 
idea  and  the  history  of  man?    It  rests  on  a  notion 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.  251 

of  him  so  mean  that  it  bemeans  everything;  it 
appeals  to  the  meanest  motives  in  man,  and  makes 
of  him  a  creature  who  has  interests,  but  no  duties, 
who  may  need  protection,  but  can  exercise  no  rights. 
It  is  small  wonder  that  a  system  so  based  should 
have  had  no  room  for  liberty,  no  idea  of  moral  order, 
or  faith  in  the  higher  progress  and  wellbeing  of 
man. 

Now  what,  in  opposition  to  these,  does  the 
Christian  religion  offer  as  its  grand  fundamental 
principle  in  politics?  Its  idea  of  God  and  its  ideal 
of  man,  viewed  in  their  mutual  or  reciprocal  relations. 
It  says:  ''God  is  the  father  of  man,  man  is  the 
child  of  God.  He  wills  every  man's  good,  and  every 
man  ought  to  attain  the  good  He  wills;  what  is 
possible  to  the  individual  is  possible  to  the  society. 
He  is  capable  of  being  virtuous,  it  is  capable  of  being 
in  all  its  order  and  relations  righteous.  The  ideal 
that  is  in  him,  it  is  bound  to  accept,  and  to  work  for 
its  realization;  the  ideal  that  is  before  it,  he  is 
bound  to  regard  as  his  own,  and  strenuously  to  do  his 
utmost  to  secure  its  embodiment.  The  law  of  the 
state  ought  to  be  in  harmony  with  God's  will,  and  so 
such  as  shall  intend  and  promote  the  good  of  all  its 
citizens;  the  conduct  of  the  citizen  ought  to  be  gov- 
erned by  the  same  will,  and  seek  at  once  the  reign 
of  righteousness  in  the  state,  and  its  realization  in 
the  individual.  To  the  good  man  the  law  of  God  is 
absolute  and  universal,  a  law  alike  for  persons  and 
peoples,  designed  to  govern  all  states,  and  be  obeyed 
of  all  men.  If,  then,  in  civil  life,  there  lie  a  wrong, 
Christian  politics  ought  to  redress  the  wrong;  if  in 


252  Beligion  in  History. 

social  life  inequalities  or  agencies  that  hinder  the 
distribution  or  creation  of  good.  Christian  society- 
ought  to  move  against  them.  Religion  cannot  be 
satisfied  till  the  ideal  of  the  perfect  man  in  the  per- 
fect state  be  realized." 

2.  You  see,  then,  that  the  Christian  religion  sup- 
plies us  for  all  civil  and  social  questions  with  con- 
structive and  regulative  principles  of  the  noblest 
kind.  In  their  light  politics  become  the  science  of 
working  out  a  perfect  order  in  which  every  man 
shall  achieve  virtue  and  attain  happiness,  that  is, 
realize  the  ideal  of  humanity  latent  within  him. 
But  I  can  only  state  the  principles:  it  is  impossible 
to  apply  them  in  detail  to  the  questions  of  legislation 
and  government.  Yet,  though  only  by  way  of  illus- 
tration, let  us  glance  at  a  question  or  two. 

i.  And  first,  as  being  most  germane  to  our  subject, 
as  concerns  our  poor.  Religion  does  not  regard 
poverty  as  a  normal  state,  rather  as  one  that  ought 
not  to  be.  Where  charity  is  needed,  it  is  a  noble 
thing  to  be  charitable,  and  charity  was  one  of  the 
most  characteristic  creations  of  Christ.  But  there  is 
something  better  than  charity,  a  state  where  it  is  not 
needed,  where  all  men  are  able  and  willing  to  earn 
their  own  livelihood,  and  enjoy  what  they  have 
earned.  Now  religion  deals  with  poverty  primarily 
as  a  matter  of  persons,  and  it  is  through  persons 
alone  that  it  can  be  overcome.  Laws  may  mitigate 
its  severity,  but  its  removal  depends  on  the  kind  and 
quality  of  persons  composing  the  state.  The  better 
a  man  is  made,  the  better  a  worker  he  is,  the  fitter 
an  agent  for  the  creation  of  wealth,  and  the  expul- 


Christian  Beligion  in  Modern  Life.         253 

sion  of  poverty.  It  is  the  worthless  that  waste; 
worth  is  productive  and  distributive.  It  makes  for 
itself,  but  loves  also  to  share  with  others.  Now  the 
Christian  religion  in  making  good  men  makes  good 
workers,  self-respectful,  independent,  fore-thought- 
ful; in  honouring  work  as  no  other  religion  does,  it 
dignifies  the  workman.  Yet,  if  misfortune  or  disas- 
ter comes,  there  is  no  spirit  so  tender,  so  helpful  as 
the  Christian.  It  will  not  leave  to  perish,  but  helps 
that  it  may  save.  And  its  charity  is  not  of  the  legal 
order,  hurting  where  it  helps;  but  of  the  merciful 
order,  which  is  twice  blessed,  blessing  him  that  gives 
and  him  that  takes.  So  our  religion  works  at  once 
to  prevent  poverty,  and  where  it  must  be,  is  qualified 
so  to  ameliorate  its  action  that  it  shall  not  deprave 
the  man.  A  people  wholly  Christian  could  not  be 
poor. 

ii.  Another  question,  partly  political  and  partly 
social,  is  the  one  now  being  so  much  discussed  as  to 
the  housing  of  the  poor.  Has  religion,  as  here  con- 
strued, any  light  to  shed  on  it?  It  insists,  in  an 
equal  degree,  on  the  person  and  his  conditions  being 
good.  What  makes  a  person  bad  or  compels  him  to 
live  under  bad  conditions,  conditions  unfavourable  to 
moral  and  physical  health,  is  a  religious  wrong. 
Thus,  if  a  man  owns  a  rookery,  and  makes  it  his 
business  to  let  houses  unfit  for  human  homes,  he 
must  be  held  guilty  of  crime  before  God  and  against 
man.  Religion  binds  a  man  to  follow  no  profession, 
to  exercise  no  craft,  save  one  promotive  of  human 
wellbeing.  If  it  be  profitable  while  injurious,  the 
profits  only  the  more  add  to  the  sin,  because  empha^ 


254  Religion  in  History, 

sizing  its  reckless  selfishness.  Men  must  live,  but 
our  means  of  living  must  be  honourable  to  be  ap- 
proved of  religion.  And  see  here  its  value  as  the 
power  for  making  right  persons.  Only  mean  men 
are  capable  of  doing  mean  things,  while  noble  men 
alone  are  equal  to  noble  deeds.  Let  a  man  be  pos- 
sessed of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  the  charity  that  seek- 
eth  not  her  own,  that  seeks  generously  the  good  of 
every  neighbour,  and  to  him  the  miserable  greed 
that  can  make  money  out  of  the  poverty  or  destitu- 
tion of  man  is  not  only  impossible,  but  unholy  and 
abominable. 

iii.  We  have  a  third  question,  or  rather  set  of 
questions,  connected  with  what  is  perhaps  the  sad- 
dest of  all  our  modern  problems,  what  men  call  the 
social  evil.  There  is  no  deeper  or  viler  sore  in  the 
heart  of  society,  though  I  may  not  speak  of  it  here 
as  it  needs  to  be  spoken  of.  Yet  it  is  an  evil  on 
which  religion  has  a  pre-eminent  right  to  be  heard, 
while  also  lying  under  solemnest  obligations  to  speak. 
To  it  man  can  never  be  a  mass  of  organized  lusts, 
whose  indulgence  is  to  be  tempered  by  prudence,  for 
to  it  man  at  his  noblest  is  most  continent.  Of  all 
humankind,  there  is  none  poorer,  no  wretch  more 
contemptible  or  base,  than  the  lustful  man,  capable 
of  working  grief  to  a  woman,  heedless  of  her  sorrow 
or  shame,  her  sad,  blighted,  lost  womanhood;  capable 
of  hiring  for  the  indulgence  of  his  bestial  passions 
a  poor  fallen  creature,  forgetful  that  even  wrecked 
womanhood  ought  to  be  sacred  to  the  man  who  is  a 
son,  and  had,  or  has,  a  mother.  Could  I  compass 
it,  I  should  make  every  such  lustful  man  a  man  to  be 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.  255 

punished,  for  there  is  no  greater  foe  to  social  good, 
no  force  that  so  threatens  the  peace  of  every  virtu- 
ous home.  Yet,  how  is  he  to  be  reached,  how  dealt 
with?  Not  by  outer  laws  simply,  not  by  external 
restraints,  not  by  preaching  the  prudence  that  tem- 
pers passion  only  that  it  may  be  the  longer  indulged; 
but  by  filling  him  with  a  spirit  too  great,  too  hon- 
ourable, too  noble,  too  full  of  chivalrous  chastity 
to  feel  the  passion  of  lust,  or  the  fascination  of 
base  desires.  And  only  one  supreme  love  has 
been  able  to  accomplish  that.  The  love  of  Christ 
has  been  the  love  of  purity,  both  in  man  and  woman, 
the  love  of  God  has  ever  been  love  of  chastity,  bind- 
ing man  to  too  noble  issues  to  allow  him  to  stain  his 
manhood  with  impurity,  or  to  deprave  womanhood 
by  his  passions.  Were  that  love  to  reign  in  society, 
we  should  soon  see  realized  the  highest  social  good, 
iv.  But  now  we  must  come,  though  for  the  briefest 
glance,  to  our  Industrial  Questions.  One  thing 
Religion  cannot  do — it  cannot  lose  sight  of  man  as  a 
living,  reasonable  soul;  but  what  Religion  cannot  do, 
Political  Economy  did.  Its  founder,  Adam  Smith, 
was  not  responsible  for  that.  The  author  of  the 
' '  Wealth  of  Nations  "  was  also  the  author  of  a  system 
of  Moral  Philosophy.  And  do  you  know  its  peculiar 
doctrine?  It  was  based  on  feeling,  on  sympathy; 
it  was  your  feeling  for  man,  your  sympathy  with 
him,  that  made  you  approve  what  promoted  his 
good,  disapprove  what  hindered  it.  But  the  men 
who  followed  Adam  Smith  forgot  his  '■ '  Theory  of 
Moral  Sentiments,"  and  dealt  with  wealth  as  if  the 
factors  of  its  creation  and  distribution  had  been  mere 


256  Religion  in  History. 

tools,  instruments,  pieces  of  mechanism.  You  know 
Sismondi's  question  to  Ricardo: — '^  When  then  I  is 
wealth  everything?  is  man  nothing?  "  And  wealth 
was  everything  to  the  political  economist,  man 
valued  only  in  relation  to  it.  And  it  was  this  in- 
difference to  men  that  made  political  economy  to 
Carlyle,  Adam  Smith's  great  countryman,  the  ^'dis- 
mal science."  But  who  creates?  who  distributes? 
who  accumulates  wealth?  Who  but  man?  And  man 
is  greater  than  any  product,  or  any  process  of  pro- 
duction, or  even  all  the  creations  of  his  hand  or 
genius.  And  no  product  is  good  that  does  not  help 
to  make  the  producer  happier  and  better;  and  only 
as  the  producers  are  improved  can  the  products  go 
on  improving.  And  so  the  science  that  does  not 
take  men  into  account  is  no  true  science  of  wealth. 
For  what  is  wealth?  A  state  of  weal.  The  common 
wealth  is  the  state  of  common  weal.  And  what  is 
that?  The  state  of  good  to  all.  Now  wealth  is  not 
money,  but  what  constitutes  man's  weal;  it  is  the 
wellbeing  of  the  living.  The  only  wealth  of  nations 
is  the  weal  of  the  peoples;  to  be  rich  in  persons, 
rich  in  the  varied  elements  that  make  life  good  to 
all,  is  for  a  nation  to  have  wealth,  and  to  be  wealthy. 
Here,  as  elsewhere,  persons  are  supreme.  Give  us 
persons  of  the  right  order,  producers,  consumers, 
capitalists,  labourers,  and  all  other  things  will  be 
added — they  will  adjust  themselves  into  an  order 
promotive  of  the  common  good.  Treat  all  questions 
in  industry  as  questions  in  religion,  and  it  is  certain 
that  those  great  problems  which  perplex  the  present 
will  become  problems  solved. 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.         257 

(1)  But,  to  select  an  example  or  two,  take  our 
problems  as  to  land.  There  are  no  questions  men 
speak  more  of  to-day.  Yet  here  the  supreme  thing 
is  the  good  of  the  people.  All  legislation  relative  to 
land  ought  to  have  that  good  prominently  in  view. 
There  is  no  law  of  God,  there  ought  to  be  no  law  of 
man,  that  so  favours  the  man  who  owns  property  in 
land  as  to  enable  him  to  dispossess  the  people.  He 
owns  it  for  their  good.  Even  where  his  rights  are 
recognized,  and  I  recognize  them  most  soundly,  he  is 
still,  in  his  very  rights,  trustee  of  a  great  national 
possession,  not  for  his  own  weal  simply,  but  for  the 
common  good.  The  rights  of  property  concern  a 
class,  and  are  based  on  fulfilled  duties,  which  concern 
the  whole  people.  I  am  come  of  a  long  race  of 
farmers,  and  love  the  soil.  My  grandfather  owned  a 
little  farm  of  a  hundred  odd  acres,  and  he  farmed 
the  land  he  owned.  One  who  loved  him  as  became 
a  daughter  used  to  tell  how  once,  in  the  corn-law 
times,  when  the  proprietors  cried,  ^'  Let  us  have  more 
protection,"  the  great  lord  of  the  neighbourhood 
came  to  visit  him,  and  to  ask  him  to  sign  a  petition, 
praying  that  still  higher  duties  might  be  imposed; 
and  the  old  man  said,  ''No!  I  will  not  sign." 
''What!  not  sign?  It  will  enhance  the  value  of 
your  land."  "Sir,"  was  the  reply,  "I  will  never 
enhance  the  value  of  my  land  at  the  expense  of  the 
people's  food."  And  he  there  stated  the  great 
principle  of  religion  in  the  matter.  He  was  a  religious 
man,  and  as  such  known  and  revered  all  round,  and 
he  only  thus  expressed  in  a  practical  article  the  faith 
by  which  he  lived.     The  land  was  meant  to  serve 


25  S  Religion  in  History, 

the  people's  good  whilst  maintaining  him.  Without 
it  the  people  cannot  live,  on  it  the  people  have  a 
right  to  live,  and  so  it  can  become  no  man's  absolute 
possession,  to  be  done  with  as  he  wills.  The  rights 
of  property  in  land,  pushed  to  their  last  legal  limit, 
might  easily  become  a  more  oppressive  and  disastrous 
tyranny  than  the  divine  right  of  kings  to  govern 
wrong;  but  the  principle  alike  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament, — the  land  is  for  the  people,  their  possession 
before  the  Lord, — limits  and  defines  these  rights. 
The  people  have  not  lost  their  rights  in  the  land  by 
ownership  becoming  personal;  nay,  have  only,  in  a 
sense,  the  more  fully  secured  and  affirmed  them. 
Communal  was  exchanged  for  personal  ownership, 
that  through  personal  responsibilities  and  action  the 
riches  of  the  soil  might  be  the  more  increased  and 
extensively  distributed.  It  happened  not  that  all 
the  rights  might  be  concentrated  on  the  head  of  the 
possessor,  but  that  all  the  capabilities  of  the  posses- 
sion might  be  developed  and  diffused.  Unless  this 
result  follow,  personal  ownership  may  become  a  pub- 
lic wrong,  and  what  has  become  that  may  become  an 
evil  not  to  be  borne.  Trusts  faithfully  discharged 
are  rights  firmly  secured;  personal  ownership  held 
and  exercised  for  the  public  good  is  the  only  owner- 
ship above  the  need,  and  so  above  the  fear,  of 
change. 

(2)  But  these  are  only  general  religious  and 
Christian  principles  applied  to  an  economical  question, 
and  all  that  is  here  possible  is  to  state  them.  Now 
this  statement  ought  to  lead  up  to  other  and  varied 
questions,  especially  those  connected  with  capital  and 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.  259 

labour.  Now,  if  this  question  were  approached  from 
the  same  point  of  view  as  one  of  mutual  duties,  which 
imply  and  recognize  mutual  rights,  how  simple  it  would 
become !  Where  a  man  works  as  a  religious  man  to 
God,  he  will  do  it,  not  as  for  wage,  but  as  best  effort 
for  noblest  purpose.  Then  his  ambition  will  not  be 
to  do  as  little  and  get  as  much  as  he  can,  but  to  do 
the  best  his  skill  and  energies  will  allow.  Where 
the  employer  is  religious,  he  will  recognize  that  he 
has  duties  he  owes  to  his  workmen,  and  his  ambition 
will  be  not  to  deal  with  them  as  ^'  hands,"  machines 
that  differ  from  his  engines  only  in  being  more  un- 
stable and  irregular  in  their  action,  but  as  souls,  to 
be  loved  as  such,  and  handled  as  rational  and  re- 
sponsible and  sensitive  men.  If  your  questions  are 
determined  as  questions  between  men  who  have  great 
moral  obligations  both  in  working  and  employing 
work,  the  mutual  duties  will  solve  and  unite  where 
mutual  interests  only  embitter  and  divide.  But  the 
supreme  necessity  is  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  order  of 
persons  religion  has  created  and  can  create.  Men 
who  seek  each  other's  good  will  harmoniously  promote 
each  other's  weal.  Men  who  believe  that  they  con- 
stitute a  brotherhood  before  God  will  do  generously 
by  each  other  in  all  questions  of  economical  and 
industrial  relations. 

There  are  also  other  questions,  such  as  those  con- 
nected with  amusements  for  the  people — which  I 
could  have  liked  to  notice,  but  must  leave  alone. 
This  question  of  amusements  is  one  that  requires 
wise  methods  of  solution,  for  there  is  nothing  we 
nave  more  need  to  do  than  to  make  life  a  little  more 


260  Religion  in  History, 

beautiful,  fuller  of  promise  and  gladness  for  labour- 
ing men.  We  all  ought  to .  feel  that  a  people  has 
a  right  to  be  happy,  and  happy  all  good  men  will 
seek  to  make  them.  But  all  I  can  say  is,  let  the 
great  moral  principles  of  religion  be  expressed  in 
our  economical  methods  and  laws,  and  we  shall  be 
sure  to  realize  the  highest  and  most  beneficent  state 
of  being. 

My  hope  for  the  future  is  in  the  ideal  of  Christ. 
My  hope  for  man  is  in  a  more  perfect  and  complete 
embodiment  of  the  Christian  religion.  When  I  look 
abroad  and  see  the  disintegrative  agencies  that  are 
hard  at  work,  the  one  thing  I  am  anxious  to  do  is 
to  bring  the  great  constructive,  the  great  architect- 
onic principles  of  our  Christian  faith  into  relation 
with  life  and  action.  Every  Christian  principle 
embodied  in  law  or  society,  every  Christian  deed 
accomplished  in  industry,  helps  on  the  happier  time. 
I  have  come  for  these  six  nights  out  of  my  own 
study  in  obedience  to  no  call  but  the  call  of  duty  as 
my  conscience  apprehended  it,  to  speak  to  you,  my 
Fellow-townsmen,  on  matters  that  are  alike  to  you 
and  me  matters  of  the  most  vital  and  transcendent 
interest,  whether  as  men  who  work  in  time  or  men 
destined  to  live  in  eternity. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  show  you  the  principles 
which  have  done  most  for  humanity  in  the  past;  ana 
to  make  manifest  to  you,  that  if  in  this  living  present 
we  are  to  have  real  and  highest  welfare,  a  wealthier 
state  and  wealthier  men,  because  men  who  have 
realized  their  manhood's  highest  state  and  truest 
weal,  then  we  must  be  men  more  and  more  baptized 


Christian  Religion  in  Modern  Life.         261 

into  Christ,  possessed  of  His  truth,  inspired  by  His 
love.  Then  when  so  inspired,  working  the  work  of 
time  as  in  eternity,  building  on  this  earth  a  city, 
meant  to  be  the  great  city  of  God,  we  shall  kand  on 
to  a  brightening  future  the  nearer  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  which  came  to  the  ages  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord. 


THE  END. 


il,  G.  SHERWOOD   &   COu 
O^INTERS.        NEW  YOfiK 


Date  Due                         ) 

Ap25^ 

fi    9Q   ^'^ 

^a  I  c. 

^       -^    K, 

'/■  ri 

1 

f 

